1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RSA STRATEGY & MARINE BILL - Bulletin Board

Discussion in 'Sea Fishing Forum - Shore, Boat & Kayak Fishing' started by Baramundi Bob, Jan 29, 2007.

  1. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Bulletin Board

    Minutes from latest meeting

    Attendance List


    Members
    Organisation
    Doug Beveridge National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
    John LeBalleur Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society (BASS)
    Leon Roskilly Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)
    Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee
    Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
    Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)
    Tim Dapling Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee

    Agency

    Alistair McDonnell Marine Fisheries Agency
    Mike Smith Cefas
    Steve Colclough Environment Agency

    Defra

    Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy
    Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy
    Nicola Clarke Coastal Waters Policy

    Apologies

    Chris Venmore Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC
    Graham Catt Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)
    Nigel Proctor National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)



    Para Ref Action Owner
    2.4 Cefas to confirm status of EC commissioned study on Sport Fisheries in the EU
    Cefas
    2.4 Defra to circulate a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures
    Defra
    2.7 Defra to circulate fish pain document to members
    Defra
    2.7 CEFAS to clarify whether note on limitations of using MLS as a management tool was circulated
    Cefas
    2.7 Defra to contact DCMS on how a more joined up approach may be achieved
    Defra
    3.3 Subgroup to consider the inclusion of links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’ means and circulate to Defra
    Subgroup
    3.4 Defra to consider the inclusion of specific objectives based on responses and discussions
    Defra
    3.5 Defra to refer to socio-economic considerations, ‘RSA only’ species and voluntary measures when revising the draft Strategy
    Defra
    3.6 Defra to emphasise the importance in collecting data on early life histories of commercial species and reflect the need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action when revising the draft Strategy
    Defra
    3.8 Defra to reword RSA Management section to more accurately reflect the aspirations of anglers
    Defra
    3.8 Defra to include in the Strategy a short list of benefits of licensing as identified in the planned Marine Bill Defra
    4.1 Defra to incorporate changes and circulate draft 4 of the RSA Strategy by 2 March
    Defra
    4.1 Members to provide comments by 9 March 2007
    Subgroup

    Minutes

    1.0 Introductions

    1.1 The Chair welcomed members to the fourth Inshore Fisheries Working Group (IFWG) – Recreational Sea Angling Strategy Subgroup meeting and thanked members for attending.

    1.2 Apologies were received from Chris Venmore, Peter Hunt of SAGB and Graham Gatt of DCMS.

    1.3 The Chair reviewed the aim of the meeting, which was to agree revisions to the final draft and next steps with a view to presenting the Strategy to the IFWG in March.

    2.0 Approval of minutes and overview of developments and actions since the last meeting.

    2.1 Following the previous RSA subgroup meeting in December, Defra produced a revised draft (draft 3) of the RSA Strategy and invited comments from members to be submitted by 1 February. The Chair thanked members for their contributions and said that their comments have been reviewed and will be taken on board (along with discussions of this meeting). The revised version (draft 4) will be circulated to members for a final opportunity to comment before it is presented to the IFWG in March.

    2.2 The Chair highlighted other developments including Defra’s Fisheries Contract, which will be discussed with a wide group of stakeholders through workshops around the coast. The Chair invited members to comment on the Contract, noting that they may be interested in reviewing aspects relating to angling.

    2.3 Another development since the previous RSA subgroup meeting was the angling stakeholder meeting, which took place on 13 December. The Chair reviewed highlights and said minutes would be available to those wishing to see them.

    2.4 The EA wished to make members aware of the EU Maritime Paper, which provides some useful background on available funding for green tourism, such as angling. The Chair also alerted members to a study commissioned by the EC on Sport Fisheries in the EU. CEFAS agreed to confirm the status of this report. The Chair also highlighted a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures which included references to angling. Defra agreed to circulate this paper to members.

    2.5 The outcome of the NFSA survey was queried (ref: Minutes, 12 December, page 4, para 2.6, bullet 4). The NFSA invited members to check the website to view the results which would be published at the end of February on http://www.nfsa.org.uk.
    2.6 For clarification, the NFFO noted their proposal to reintroduce MLSs did not extend to all species under the Technical Conservation Regulations. (ref: para 2.4 of the minutes).

    2.7 The Chair reviewed the actions of the previous meeting. It was noted that:
     Defra were seeking advice from colleagues in Animal Health and Welfare on the current position, and would circulate the Cefas document on fish pain once received.
     Cefas to clarify whether document on limitations of using MLS as a management tool has been circulated.
     The DCMS success criteria for project funding was reflected in the Strategy, however, Defra noted that a more joined up approach was required and agreed to contact them on how this might be achieved.

    Action: Cefas to confirm status of EC commissioned study on Sport Fisheries in the EU
    Action: Defra to circulate a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures
    Action: Defra to circulate fish pain document to members
    Action: CEFAS to clarify whether note on limitations of using MLS as a management tool was circulated
    Action: Defra to contact DCMS on how a more joined up approach may be achieved

    3.0 Open discussion on revised draft

    3.1 The Chair suggested that since detailed comments were received on draft 3 of the Strategy, it would be helpful if the group focused on key issues they wished to discuss. As previously noted, members would be given another opportunity to comment on the draft and minor amendments would then be considered.

    3.2 It was noted that the Strategy needed to appeal to the wider audience who had not been involved in discussions to date. After discussion on the best format for the Strategy, it was agreed to draw out key messages in each section with the background text supporting reasoning and approach.

    3.3 There was further discussion on the use of ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’. This was discussed at length in the previous meeting (ref: Minutes, 12 December, page 3, para 2.5). It was resolved to consider the inclusion of several links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based’ means, with subgroup members to suggest appropriate links.

    3.4 It was felt by several members that the focus on ‘more and bigger fish’ (or wording of equivalent meaning) should be a key objective. The EA added that the objectives should also relate to the environment . Defra agreed to consider and reflect these points in the drafting.

    3.5 When discussing Species, Stock Impact and Habitat Management, the NFSA noted that socio-economic considerations should be fully considered to ensure that decisions on fisheries management are effectively evaluated. The concept of ‘RSA only’ species should also be better reflected in the draft, and it was further noted that voluntary measures should also be included as a possible tool for species management.

    3.6 Early life-histories of commercial species were noted as a large gap in fisheries science. It was thought that the Strategy could therefore place greater emphasis on the importance in bridging this gap. Members agreed a key point to flag was that the Strategy’s remit related to inshore fisheries, but that to deliver the objectives effectively there was a need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action. Defra would need to play a role in this.

    3.7 The inclusion of the ‘golden mile’ was debated. It was appreciated that while this was an aspiration for anglers, there is no evidence to support the case either way at present. Specified areas were a more realistic approach, based on sound evidence and on a case-by-case basis. A key action for the Strategy would be to start gathering this evidence. Natural England added that there may be some areas of the sea where all activities will need to be stopped in order to protect particular habitats, communities or species from damage.

    3.8 The Chair acknowledged the sensitivity surrounding RSA management, especially in relation to ‘bag limits’. Angling representatives outlined the strong opposition within the angling sector to the concept of bag limits, particularly as an aid to enforcement rather than as a conservation tool to be applied alongside equivalent controls on the commercial sector. There was debate on the most appropriate controls to introduce to the sector and it was noted that benefits would need to be realised before controls would be acceptable. Defra agreed to reword this section and highlight key points, but it was generally considered that ‘bag limits’ should remain within the document, pointing out the use of this tool as a conservation measure with added benefits that would enable better enforcement of unlicensed fishing activities. It was considered that this debate would be more appropriate for the implementation stage of the Strategy.

    Action: Subgroup to consider the inclusion of links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’ means and circulate to Defra
    Action: Defra to consider the inclusion of specific objectives based on responses and discussions.
    Action: Defra to refer to socio-economic considerations, ‘RSA only’ species and voluntary measures when revising the draft Strategy
    Action: Defra to emphasise the importance in collecting data on early life histories of commercial species and reflect the need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action when revising the draft Strategy
    Action: Defra to reword RSA Management section to more accurately reflect the aspirations of anglers

    4.0 Summary and next steps

    4.1 The Chair thanked all present for a productive meeting. The points raised had been noted and would be reflected in a revised draft (draft 4), along with the comments received on 1 February. The tight timetable was highlighted - Draft 4 would then be circulated to the group by Friday 2 March and comments on this draft should be received by Friday 9 March.

    4.2 After the revised draft had been circulated and commented received, Defra would produce a draft paper, covering the Strategy, with recommendations to present to the IFWG meeting on 23 March. Members agreed a recommendation to consult more widely would be important and an opportunity for Members to comment on these recommendations would be provided.

    4.3 Finally, the future of the group was discussed. It was agreed to continue to meet with the purpose of reviewing comments and steering implementation of the Strategy, but on a when needed or bi-annual basis. This would be put to the IFWG for their endorsement.

    Action: Defra to incorporate changes and circulate draft 4 of the RSA Strategy by 2 March
    Action: Members to provide comments by 9 March 2007



    Coastal Waters Policy
    February 2007
     
  2. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    RSA Strategy - Draft 4

    I think this is the final one.


    DRAFT V.4
    26 Feb 2007

    RECREATIONAL SEA ANGLING STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND

    INSHORE WORKING GROUP
    RSA SUBGROUP

    CONTENTS

    Insert table when complete draft


    1. INTRODUCTION

    • Why a RSA Strategy is important, its scope and responsibilities for implementation

    Background
    1.1 The Drew Report into the economic impact of recreational sea angling reported that in 2002 around 2 million people went sea angling at least once in England and Wales. The total expenditure by sea anglers resident in England and Wales on their sport has been estimated at £538m from 12.7m anglers’ days annually. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report, “Net Benefits ” and the Bradley Review of Marine Fisheries and Enforcement ” also noted the importance of Recreational Sea Angling (RSA).

    1.2 This Strategy represents the culmination of work to provide a co-ordinated direction for RSA by identifying the key elements that are likely to play a significant part in the future of the sport. It sets out the framework under which specific actions will be taken and ensures that links are made with other key drivers in fisheries management, such as the 2027 Fisheries Vision. It has been developed by a subgroup (at Annex A) of the Inshore Fisheries Working Group (at Annex B). It is not owned by any one organisation, but is an example of positive stakeholder collaboration and it will be the responsibility of all stakeholders to implement the Strategy.


    Scope and Definition
    1.3 The Strategy is primarily concerned with issues and considerations that are of relevance to Recreational Sea Anglers in England.Recreational Sea Angling can be defined as

    “A leisure activity in which an individual uses a rod, line and hook or line and hook, to catch fish on a non-commercial basis”

    1.4 The Strategy does not consider other recreational forms of fishing, such as recreational or artisanal potting and netting, or commercial rod-and-line fishing, but there will be many relevant links and some objectives will provide benefits to a wider range of stakeholders.

    1.5 This Strategy acknowledges that there is a diverse range of recreational sea angling activities and users with varying requirements. It is not possible to consider in detail the specific preferences, objectives or approaches taken by each. Instead, the framework in this Strategy is intended to provide the mechanism to enable more detailed measures to be taken forward by the appropriate, identified bodies.

    1.6 An RSA SWOT analysis is at Annex C, which highlights the areas this Strategy will address and build on.

    Development and Implementation
    The Strategy should always be progressed at the most appropriate level according to the issue. Although there is a shared responsibility by all stakeholders to make progress, one key organisation will be identified as the lead in each case. In cases where there are conflicts or the action and owner is unclear, Defra is willing to monitor the overall success of the strategy and act as broker to facilitate progress. To monitor and assist the implementation of the Strategy, the RSA subgroup will continue to meet and additionally act as a discussion forum to share information, continue the stakeholder dialogue to date and resolve areas of conflict, in line with the communications objectives in this Strategy.
    2. STRATEGY GOALS

    • Defining the key aim and objectives of the Strategy


    2.1 The aim of the Strategy is:

    “ To enhance the recreational sea angling experience in England in a holistic and environmentally responsible way while following the principles of sustainable fisheries management.”

    The ‘sea angling experience’ is everything that makes sea angling an enjoyable activity. The primary desire on the part of anglers is to catch more and bigger fish. In addition, the ‘experience’ includes un-measurable elements such as the quality and accessibility of angling sites, degree of angling knowledge and skill that is perceived as being required to catch particular species, the belief that desirable fish are in the fishing area and potentially ‘catchable’, and other social aspects valued by the sea angling community.

    2.2 The Strategy aims and objectives are based around the concept that angling should be conducted in a way that takes account of its impacts on the environment, as well as the environment’s impacts on angling. The RSA sector should also be included in ongoing discussions in relation to the adoption of an ‘ecosystem based approach’ and the implementation of the Strategy should reflect wider developments within the Marine Environment. Adopting an ‘ecosystem based approach’ [IN FOOTNOTE – ADD REFERENCES TO DEFINITION] will therefore be the key aspiration for RSA.


    There are 4 sub-objectives to the Strategy:

    • To provide more and bigger fish within a healthy and sustainable ecosystem and environment

    • To capitalise on the economic potential of the sport to maximise the benefits to businesses servicing the sector, coastal economies and society and identify ways to re-invest expenditure to provide further benefits

    • To maintain and increase participation in RSA on a sustainable basis, (promoting best environmental practice) across all groups in society to provide socio – economic benefits

    • To increase awareness and understanding of RSA, both within and outside the sector, through improved communication, education and increased participation in fisheries management


    3. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
    • Ensure there is a flexible management framework that enables all those with a stake in the marine environment, including the RSA sector, to be equally involved in decision making

    • Fisheries management decisions will be taken at the appropriate level

    • The framework will enable managers to anticipate and take action quickly using a range of tools

    3.1 Fisheries Management is already changing, reflecting the need to modernise and be inclusive. The principles of good governance, effective management and best practice must be supported by all users of the Marine Environment, and it is recognised that there are many objectives common to all users. All users would see benefits from diverse and plentiful fish stocks and from an environment that supports a healthy ecosystem. Marine resources should be managed holistically and the needs of all stakeholders should be assessed against this approach.

    3.2 Whilst historically the RSA sector has been under-represented in fisheries management discussions, RSA is increasingly recognised as a significant activity, both socially and economically, and as a significant contributor to coastal economies. There must be a management framework that can adequately reflect the needs of the RSA sector alongside other stakeholders at national, regional and local levels.

    3.3 The framework should be flexible and enable management responsibility to be clearly delegated to the most appropriate level for the issue. While the EC is a key driver in fisheries managementr, the majority of RSA takes place within inshore waters. In line with other fisheries responsibilities at this level, Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) would be well placed to manage local stocks, respond quickly when required and introduce measures relevant to angling. There is also a case for national action when the same issue is identified across a number of districts. Defra also has an important role to play in ensuring inshore management needs are taken account of in offshore and wider Community fisheries management.

    3.4 To deliver their objectives, inshore managers must be equipped with the appropriate set of management tools. These tools have be comprehensive, clearly recognising responsibilities and duties and covering decision-making processes, powers with which to legislate and provide for effective enforcement. Enforcement bodies such as SFCs, the MFA and EA must also take more co-ordinated action to ensure measures are implemented effectively.


    Fisheries management decisions are based on the costs and benefits (environmental, social, and economic) of the options available, but driven by conservation principles. The value placed on a single fish changes depending on whether it is being targeted commercially or recreationally, although the two values are difficult to compare. The characteristics of each stock are, in part, dependent on how it is being targeted – the number, size and age of fish being removed. Fisheries management decisions need to take account of all these factors, and more emphasis should be placed on socio-economic factors in management decisions. The ability to take account of socio-economic factors will therefore need to be built into the management framework.

    3.5 Changes in fisheries management to help deliver improved management at both local and national levels will be made through the Government’s planned Marine Bill. Defra’s Coastal Waters team also provides a new, central contact for recreational sea angling, and will ensure that angling interests are considered in national fisheries decisions. .
     
  3. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Strategy - Draft 4

    4. SPECIES, STOCK IMPACT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT

    • Providing more and bigger fish using a variety of tools and mechanisms

    • Species management plans for a stakeholder compiled list of key species of importance to anglers – including consideration of recreational only species

    • Measures that promote fish stock levels and maturity (such as minimum and maximum landing sizes, or nursery areas or protection of spawning aggregrations) to be considered

    • On the basis of solid evidence, consider specific areas for special consideration with a view to limiting commercial activity or reserving them for angling use only. The potential benefits of MPAs, nursery areas and fixed engine byelaws to be investigated.


    4.1 Fish stocks are a shared resource, and should be managed in a way that takes into account the needs of all with an interest. Improved management of fish stocks and habitat can provide benefits to all sectors. Some species are valued equally by both the commercial and recreational sector, whilst others are of value to only one sector. Relative values of species can also vary by geographical area. The RSA sector also values the ‘expectation of catching a specimen fish’ as part of the whole “angling experience”, as well as the actual reward in capturing a particular species or specimen. This value can be enhanced by development in three key areas, outlined below.

    Species Management Plans
    4.2 There are a number of species that are particularly prized by anglers because of their biological or geographical ‘rarity’, ‘catchability/sporting prowess’ and potentially large size, and management plans would set specific measures that would enhance the stock to maximise the angling opportunities. Some work has already been carried out to develop management measures or plans for some species, such as elasmobranchs, bass and mullet. Work done to date on individual species should help to inform future proposals and lessons learned from establishing and implementing any measures drawn upon. Commercial bycatch could be an important issue for any species specific measures, and should be considered in management plans.

    4.3 Plans should set clear objectives for each species and consider the full range of management tools available to achieve those objectives. Choice of tools will be dependent on species, objectives and the practicability of implementation and are likely to differ in each management plan and, for some species, may even differ in terms of coastal or regional location. Legislation is not always appropriate, and in some circumstances, voluntary agreements or education may also prove an effective management tool.

    4.4 Management plans should be informed as much as possible by current and ongoing scientific advice. Where there is a lack of data, all interested stakeholders should share the responsibility and cost (in both time and financial terms) in providing the evidence required to make informed decisions. There would also be value in placing more resources into gathering information about the early life-histories of species of high shared value, (such as cod) which would provide benefits for all stakeholders in the provision of more and bigger fish as well as improvement and protection of habitats. Organisations such as the EA and Defra should work together to share resources, especially where there are fresh water/marine links.

    4.5 On the basis of a list of key species identified on a regional and national basis and agreed by stakeholders, plans would be drawn up beginning with those species that are of more value to the recreational sector than commercial sector. This would enable different management tools to be tested, providing an opportunity to evaluate, demonstrate and promote the wider benefits of taking action before any consideration of other more commercially valuable species. Management Plans should consider the value in reserving some species for recreational use only. Plans should clearly state the most appropriate level to take action (i.e. whether local/national). For example, prohibiting the use of flounders for pot bait in areas where flounder levels have declined rapidly.

    Management measures that promote fish maturity
    4.6 When considering with stakeholders which species are put forward for Species Management Plans, other species that could benefit from measures to promote maturity should also be evaluated. . The principles of sustainable fisheries management, and the need to ensure diverse fish populations would drive the introduction of any such measures.

    4.7 There are a range of management tools that would promote fish maturity. The concept of Minimum Landing Size (MLS) that is above the age of maturity for each species is broadly promoted, but is not may not be the most effective or appropriate tool in all cases. Measures such as protecting nursery or broodstockbrood stock aggregating areas, for example, could provide benefits through increasing recruitment or protecting large fish when they are most vulnerable to exploitation. A Maximum Landing Size (MaxLS) is also being considered for some species, such as skates and rays, at all levels of management (i.e. at a local, national and EU level).

    4.8 All stakeholders should be involved in the discussion to ensure there is a clear understanding of the practicalities and consequences involved in delivering any measures, and consensus should be reached where possible. The NFFO has previously proposed the re-introduction of MLSs in the UK for some species that were previously included under the EU Technical Conservation regulations. . The RSA sector will need to be engaged in the debate on MaxLSs as proposals develop, and as more evidence is gathered this should be considered as a tool in relation to species management plans.

    4.9 With regard to ensuring that discards are kept to a minimum and noting the complexities of impacts in mixed fisheries, the ultimate choice of management tool would be dependent on fish species and informed by scientific advice. The introduction of any relevant management tools, such as an MLS, should be widely publicised (through signage and fisheries publications) and effectively enforced.

    Protection of habitats and introduction of angling-only areas
    4.10 Within the RSA sector there is strong support for a ‘Golden Mile’. This is defined as an area within 1nm of the shoreline that is of significant importance to anglers – it is not a ‘blanket ban’ . Although the sector acknowledges the impact such a measure would have on the commercial sector, there is considerable strength of feeling on this issue from a large number of anglers, who perceive that inshore netting reduces the likelihood of catching a fish, so diminishing the ‘angling experience’ within an area where a significant amount of sea angling takes place.

    4.11 . It is acknowledged that, to some extent, there is a misconception about the extent and impact of netting inshore. Much of this misconception could be remedied through improved marking of buoys, education about fishing practices and clear signage via a national code..

    4.12 Blanket measures such as a complete ban on netting and trawling or other forms of fishing within one mile of the shore could only be introduced after the costs and benefits have been fully evaluated and are likely to be extremely contentious. Such areas can also be difficult to define, legislate for and enforce effectively. The inshore zone is important to a number of small scale commercial fishing operators and displacement may also create health and safety problems, whilst the issue of compensation may also arise if management measures are taken on any basis other than for conservation reasons. The first step to moving this forward would be to collate the necessary evidence, firstly to demonstrate whether there is an issue from interactions within 1nm and secondly to provide the data to enable any measures to be approached on a scientific, rather than ad-hoc basis. Such evidence would also facilitate dialogue between sectors.

    4.13 Rather than Recognising Defra’s concerns that the concept of the “Golden Mile” is difficult to deliver a ‘Golden Mile’ a more practicable approach in the near future would be to identify specific areas (not just within 1nm) for special consideration, and limit commercial activity or reserve them for angling use only. Other areas could be managed more sensitively for multifunctional use. This might include peninsulas, wrecks or beach marks, for example. Other areas could be managed more effectively to improve the habitat and ecosystem, such as protecting the sea bed and increasing species richness and abundance. Such measures would be developed in consultation with local stakeholders including angling representatives.

    4.14 There is a range of tools already in existence that can be used to designate further specific areas, and the Marine Bill should include provisions to broaden management measures. There is a communications gap in terms of awareness of the associated benefits of areas already existing where commercial activity is limited, and the relevant fisheries managers should work to ensure such benefits are identified and widely publicised.

    4.15 Currently the main measures inshore which have the potential to provide benefits for anglers are fixed engine byelaws and bass nursery areas. As a starting point, there should therefore be a review of the extent and effectiveness of these measures, with a view to improving or widening their application. Management bodies, such as Defra, SFCs and the EA should work together closely to identify where synergies might exist.

    4.16 The RSA sector should be involved in plans to introduce Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to ensure that their interests are fully represented in the design and designation of these areas. Depending on the management objectives for each MPA, there is scope for some areas to effectively become ‘angling only’. Where ‘No Take Zones’ are considered, anglers could be considered for inclusion as low-impact users in the surrounding buffer zones. Again, education and promotion of the benefits should underpin such measures.

    4.17 Anglers should also work with local and national fisheries managers and scientists to identify the current ‘angling hot-spots’ and areas where there is minimal limited commercial fishing, but excellent angling potential. Such areas could be used for pilot studies, restricting use for sea-anglers only. Monitored closely, evidence built from such areas would then provide the basis for the further action elsewhere.

    4.18 Defra will ensure a balanced application of funds available for development of marine based sectors, including RSA, which has significant development potential.


    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.


    6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

    • Develop a national Code of Conduct that promotes best practice for Recreational Sea Anglers

    6.1 The RSA sector recognises that it has a responsibility for promoting and developing the sector. In particular, the sector should build upon the work done to date to establish codes of conduct and encourage best practice. The underpinning elements should be environmental protection, safety and personal responsibility. The sector should work with environmental bodies, local authorities and other relevant organisations to identify where action is needed to improve the way in which anglers carry out their fishing activities.

    6.2 Elements that could be considered include:
    • Marine finfish handling and return from both boat and shore
    • Sustainable angling practices (‘catch and release’ through to ‘catching sufficient for the table’)
    • Bait collection
    • Appropriate hook selection for size and species of targeted fish
    • Appropriate terminal tackle selection to minimise tackle losses
    • Disposal of waste and marine litter
    • Safety for the public and fishers from the shore and boats
    • Liability insurance
    • Knowledge of finfish regulations

    6.3 Existing case studies (such as the use of litter bins and discarded tackle clean-up operations) should be researched to identify the actions needed to deliver the benefits, and good practice examples replicated. The self-regulation mechanism should be actively publicised and promoted throughout the angling community and beyond, to improve general perceptions and knowledge amongst other sectors and the public. The RSA sector should work with SFCs, RDAs and Local Authorities in promoting codes of conduct.
     
  4. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Strategy - Draft 4

    7. ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT

    • Providing support elements to improve the Angling Experience by building relationships with key organisations, accessing funding sources or self-funding.

    7.1 Availability of mature and sustainable fish stocks and a healthy marine environment are the primary elements that affect the angling experience. Secondary elements provide the less obvious but still critical ‘support system’ that underpins this. It is important that these secondary elements are developed in conjunction with any changes to fisheries management to deliver increased benefits to anglers.

    7.2 Support system elements, (such as access to fishing sites, development of angling structures, boat launch and charter boat access facilities) make it easier for anglers to carry out the key activity (fishing) itself. This is especially critical when considering how to broaden and increase participation in RSA by reducing the additional effort potentially new or less able bodied anglers would need to expend to go sea angling.

    7.3 There would also be benefits for other users sharing and accessing the same facilities, whilst structural developments might provide safe-havens or habitat replacements for juvenile and adult fish. There are links with other elements of the Strategy, such as MPAs, and access opportunities need to be considered in relation to other Marine developments, such as the introduction of offshore wind farms. Key elements of access and development could include:

    • Protection and improvement of shore access and parking
    • Provision of more small boat launching facilities
    • Access to existing and new shore structures

    • Clear displays of relevant rules (MLS etc), codes of conduct and other useful data at every popular shore venue, on websites, boat launch site and aboard charter boats
    • Provision of amenities for anglers at popular venues, such as bins and toilets
    •
    • A planning system that would protect access and use for RSA on existing structures and new developments, particularly for wheelchair users, young and elderly fishers.

    7.4 Development of these secondary elements would require funding which could be achieved through a chargeable angling licence. However, there are a number of other possible sources that should also be considered, especially when facilities that benefit multiple users or provide additional environmental benefits are being considered. Potential funding sources could include grants for environmental, social, tourism, sports or regeneration projects. A study to identify possible funding sources should be conducted in the first instance.

    7.5 Establishing partnerships between key angling and non-angling organisations would provide the basis for accessing available funds. The EA, Natural England (through their plans for a Coastal access strip) and other management bodies also have a role in developing access to fishing sites. The RSA sector could raise its profile through the promotion of the value of the sector to regional or local bodies that are involved in planning and development, such as Local Authorities and the Regional Development Agencies, and ensure the sector is included within social and economic strategies for the areas.

    8. COMMUNICATION

    • Improving RSA internal and external communications to ensure the sector is co-ordinated and represents a balanced view in multi-stakeholder discussions.

    • Management bodies to ensure RSA has a legitimate place in stakeholder discussions and decision-making processes.

    8.1 Improving communication between fisheries managers and anglers and other sectors is critical in achieving many of the Strategy objectives and to help to establish the RSA sector as a legitimate stakeholder in fisheries and environmental management. Further, there are a number of misconceptions that could be addressed through improved communications. It is recognised that anglers have achieved much in a relatively short space of time to become established as a stakeholder in the Marine Environment, and in part this has been due to better, more co-ordinated representation. This foundation can be built on.

    8.2 Improving internal communications to ensure anglers are united in presenting their case and have clear evidence for action. It is recognised that a key attraction of RSA is independence , which may mean many anglers prefer not to become involved in increased stakeholder participation. Nevertheless, there would be benefits to the sector through increased participation and co-ordination among angling representative bodies. The RSA sector should also look for opportunities to work with other key stakeholders to achieve joint objectives.

    8.3 Defra, SFCs and the EA should ensure that there is good communication of management measures to anglers, particularly where these measures provide benefits to anglers. Government, management bodies, Agencies and key organisations are already engaging with anglers and should continue to extend these opportunities to anglers to participate in decision-making fora and balance the needs of anglers alongside other key stakeholders. The need for regular continuing dialogue between angling and the commercial sector, locally and nationally, is essential. Wider consultation on this Strategy will provide a firm basis to co-ordinate and improve all aspects of communication.


    9. INFORMATION AND MEASUREMENT

    • Gathering data and building a reliable evidence base to inform management decisions and monitor their impact

    9.1 It is widely acknowledged that at present there is limited data for RSA. It will be critical to gather sufficient information to establish a baseline, and continue to collect data in future to measure the success of the Strategy objectives.

    9.2 Current sources include recent publications such as the Drew and Nautilus Reports , historical angling data (competitions, NFSA specimen records etc) and voluntary tagging schemes for some species . Data is not centrally co-ordinated or always fully accessible and significant gaps remain. Further, although there is much scientific understanding and commercial catch data about some species little is known about many species of relatively little commercial interest that have a high angling value. .

    9.3 Existing sources of information should be collated to inform the present and past pictures and establish a baseline. New science and data collection programmes should be established for species identified for action to ensure management decisions can be evidence-based and monitored for impact. Although studies would require funding, much could be achieved by establishing new Science Partnerships between CEFAS & other Defra Agencies, environmental organisations, educational establishments and key angling organisations. The RSA sector also has a responsibility to provide data, and voluntary logbook and catch-return schemes should be established. The possible introduction of a licensing scheme or bag-limits would also provide opportunities for more formal catch-return mechanisms and species specific data.


    10. IMPLEMENTATION & SUCCESS CRITERIA

    • Monitoring the success of the Strategy and ensuring it remains a useable document

    10.1 This Strategy should be viewed as a long-term plan to achieve the objectives outlined in section 2. Many of the management tools that could be used to progress each Strategy element will take time to implement fully and so it may take some time for visible progress to be demonstrated. It will therefore be important to put in place measures in the short term to prepare the path for longer term measures. This Strategy should be ‘iterative’, remaining open for review to ensure RSA evolves alongside other changing or new Marine priorities. There should be a formal review of the Strategy after three years.

    10.2 The ‘angling experience’ is inherently personal and dependent on a number of qualitative elements and therefore difficult to measure. However, it is possible to identify quantitative measurables that contribute to the overall angling experience, by which success could be judged over a timescale. The chosen measurables must therefore reflect and be assessed against the appropriate timescale. Key measurables are identified in table 2 below.

    Table 2: Success criteria

    Measurable Assessment & timescale Responsible organisations
    1 Angling participants
    • Number
    • Social structure Formally assessed every 5 years through survey. Anecdotally assessed annually through NFSA and other organisation membership numbers. RSA sector (Annual Lead)
    Government (Formal review lead)

    2 Number of RSA target species managed and their associated stock numbers and population structure against target levels.and profile.

    Overall assessment every 5 years, using a range of data types as appropriate
    Individually assessed on timescales appropriate for each species
    Defra & CEFAS (Lead)
    RSA Sector
    SFCs
    3 Angling expenditure and contribution to UK economy Formally assessed every 5 years. Anecdotally assessed annually through angling surveys
    Government (Lead)
    RSA sector
    4 Site access
    • Number accessible
    • Access improved Assessed every 3 years Local Authorities
    RDAs (Lead)
    RSA Sector
    Defra
    5 Number and location of facilities for anglers
    • Boat launches
    • Amenities
    • Information displays Assessed every 5 years Local Authorities
    RSA sector
    DCMS/Sport England
    SFCs
    EA
    6 Number , location and extent of f areas for special angling consideration Assessed every 5 years SFCs (lead)
    Natural England
    Defra
    EA



    ANNEX A – INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP
    RSA SUBGROUP MEMBERSHIP

    Member Organisation

    Chris Venmore Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC
    Doug Beveridge National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
    Graham Catt Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)
    John Leballeur Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society (BASS)
    Leon Roskilly Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)
    Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee
    Nigel Proctor National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
    Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
    Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)
    Tim Dapling Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee
    Steve Colclough Environment Agency
    Mike Pawson Cefas
    Alistair McDonnell Marine Fisheries Agency

    Defra

    Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)
    Nicola Clarke Coastal Waters Policy
    Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy
    Simon Mundy Defra Legal

    ANNEX B – INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP
    MEMBERSHIP

    Member Organisation

    Barrie Deas National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
    Chris Venmore Devon SFC
    Diana Mompoloki South West Regional Development Agency
    Godfrey Williams Environment Agency (EA)
    Lisa Browning The Wildlife Trusts
    Mike Pawson CEFAS
    Peter Hunt Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)
    Peter Winterbottom Association of Sea Fisheries Committees (ASFC)
    Richard Ferre National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
    Sue Utting Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA)
    Tom Pickerell World Wildlife Fund UK
    Mat Mander Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee
    Rob Blyth-Skyrme Natural England (NE)

    Defra
    Trevor Hutchings Coastal Waters Policy (Chair)
    Anthony Hynes Coastal Waters Policy
    Annabel Stockwin Coastal Waters Policy
    Erin Priddle Coastal Waters Policy




    ANNEX C - RSA SWOT ANALYSIS

    STRENGTHS
    High participation levels.
    Large and varied coastline.
    Wide range of fish species.
    Large Economic Activity.
    Popular Leisure Activity.
    Low Environmental Impact.
    Healthy outdoor activity.
    Brings one close to the environment.
    Attractive to youngsters.
    May reduce youth crime through participation and awareness
    Free access for most.
    Supports boat/tackle/charter/hotel trades.
    Successful track record in International Shore and Boat competitions.
    Increasing awareness within the sector of the benefit of conservation measures and successful catch and release.
    Integral part of the coastal tourist industry.
    WEAKNESSES
    Fragmented nature of the participants has meant that Recreational Sea Angling voice has not been listened to in the past.
    Often solitary participants difficult to engage.
    Activity is dependent on fish stocks.
    Seen by some competing sectors and a few resource managers as a “Frivolous” activity.
    RSA could have a better conservation image, given its low environmental impact.
    The legal position of RSA is confused. There is uncertainty what rules apply and who can enforce them.
    Lack of detailed catch and commercial data hampers decision making.
    Communication processes are difficult because of the make up of the participants.
    Is not fully engaged within the resource management system.

    OPPORTUNITIES
    RSA is the only English fin fishing based activity with real growth potential, based on results from other countries.
    Increasing levels of personal wealth mean that expenditure levels grow faster than catch rates.
    Opportunity to increase tourism by both attracting external visitors and keeping our travellers at home.
    Opportunity for existing commercial fishers to diversify as activity increases.
    Opportunities to increase participation through education and training.
    Clear evidence from other countries of successful programmes.
    Creation of artificial reefs, inshore and offshore RSA only zones and more shore based fishing structures. THREATS
    Reducing fish stocks will deter anglers from participating.
    Increased difficulties over access to shore, piers and docks are reducing fishing venues.
    Ill informed conservation measures could needlessly limit RSA activity.
    Historic non-involvement in fishery decision making will continue to hamper
    best value decisions on access to fish stocks.
    Perception of anglers selling fish is damaging RSA and threatening beneficial decisions.
    CFP decisions are often at odds with what is needed to improve English inshore fish stocks.
    Misinformation from protagonists to deflect scrutiny of their own activities.
     
  5. Leon Roskilly

    Leon Roskilly New Member

    Re: RSA Strategy - Draft 4

    Nope, not the final one, but we are getting there.

    (You forgot to mention that 'I am grateful to the secretive SACN for supplying this document to me'!! :)

    The 'finishing touches' are still being applied.

    The 'final one' will be issued to all those interested as a consultation document in the 'early summer' at the start of a 12 week consultation period when everyone will be able to let DEFRA have their views.

    It's important to use the intervening time to increase the profile of RSA, and the needs of the sector, to create a climate in which responses from RSA will be looked upon favourably by politicians and decision makers in fishery management.

    And it's even more important that when the consultation document is issued, that as many individual anglers and RSA organisations as possible respond with constructive and well argued points, and with good evidence to back them up.

    Similarly there must be good responses from anglers a and angling organisations to the Fisheries 2027 Vision consultation, and to the White paper on the Marine Bill which will be published later this month containing proposals for giving the Government powers to charge anglers (and inshore fishermen), apply bag limits to anglers, create Marine Protected Areas, and transform the Sea Fisheries Committess (and a lot else besides!)
     
  6. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Strategy - Draft 4

    If the cap fits wear it ;) A better effort though. As I say if you want to avoid the tag of being secretive you stop being secretive. If you want to avoid accusations of only representing yourself - you speak to others.

    :(
     
  7. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Bulletin Board

    NFSA back track on the licence :

    See:

    http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,353.0.html

    ;D ;D
     
  8. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA Bulletin Board

    RSA Strategy Draft 5 approved by Inshore Fisheries Working Group.

    see:

    http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Political-News/RSA_Strategy_Approved_for_Consultation.html

    :) :)
     
  9. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA STRATEGY - Bulletin Board

    East Anglian Anglers get meeting with local sea fisheries committee. Bag limits and Rsa Strategy takes up half of the meeting.
     
  10. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA STRATEGY - Bulletin Board

    New article in the telegraph today saying anglers will be forced to buy a licence.

    Please see the following topic for more details :

    http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/north-east-coast-fishing/sea-angling-licence-looks-ever-more-likely/0/

    ;)
     
  11. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA STRATEGY - Bulletin Board

    This thread seems popular. Who is reading it ?

    come join us in the forum

    http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/index.php
     
  12. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA STRATEGY - Bulletin Board

    related topic here :

    http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/north-east-coast-fishing/sless-from-nesa-wrote-to-david-milliband-about-the-sea-angling-licence/0/
     
  13. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Re: RSA STRATEGY - Bulletin Board

    What Robert Goodwill local MP says :

    http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/north-east-coast-fishing/what-whitby's-mp-says-regarding-the-proposed-fishing-licence/0/
     
  14. HARRA1

    HARRA1 New Member

    April 11, 2007
    Miliband - can he fix it?
    I'm in tune with the 'I can' generation
    By David Miliband

    I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. ...

    In the battle against climate change, an "I can" society enables citizens to become producers as well as consumers of energy. Within ten years, all new homes will need to sell energy back to the national grid, with citizens getting a fair price for their electricity. The power stations of the future will draw energy from a million roofs, rather than just a central generator. "I can" must be combined with a sense of "we can"


    It has taken me a while to identify the underlying political philosophy underpinning David's bold new approach but a few minutes of babysitting has given me the answer:


    Bob the Builder!
    Can we fix it?
    Bob the Builder!
    Yes we can!

    Scoop, Muck and Dizzy,
    And Roley too.
    Lofty and Wendy
    Join the crew.
    Bob and the gang
    Have so much fun.
    Working together
    They get the job done.

    Bob the Builder!
    Can we fix it?
    Bob the Builder!
    Yes we can! (I think so!)

    Posted by The Englishman at 7:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


    Something Fishy About Miliband
    Sea anglers may be forced to buy a licence | Uk News | News | Telegraph

    More than one million sea anglers will be forced for the first time to pay to fish under Government plans for a licensing system.

    Ministers are proposing charges to cover beach anglers, boat fishing and charter trips, overturning a British tradition enshrined in common law nearly 800 years ago.

    David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, wants to use the licence fee...

    Captain Haddock of this fair shire is a keen sea angler, and not one to mince his words, I can't wait...

    Posted by The Englishman at 6:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    March 30, 2007
    Have your say on the Milblogger
    David Miliband MP's blog is being evaluated as part of
    the 'Digital Dialogues' pilot (www.digitaldialogues.org.uk). The 'Digital Dialogues'
    evaluations are being compiled by the independent, non-partisan Hansard Society


    Digital Dialogues - David Miliband Blog Survey


    David Miliband Blog Survey

    The purpose of this survey is to your ask your views on the blog of David Miliband MP, Secretary of State for the Environment. We are also interested in your general thoughts on the contribution of technology to British politics.


    I wonder if Guido will post his thoughts?
    I hope you do.

    Posted by The Englishman at 4:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

    March 28, 2007
    Miliband's Department Failure
    News | Telegraph

    The total bill for the Government's failure to pay English farmers their subsidies on time over the past two years could reach £500 million, a committee of MPs is expected to say today.

    The cost includes up to £305 million in fines from Europe, £156 million on "fixing" the failures at the Rural Payments Agency and £21 million in interest payments to farmers last year.

    In a long-awaited report which is expected to be critical of the Government, MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee are expected to determine whether responsibility should rest with a wider range of ministers and officials than who have lost their jobs so far.

    While Lord Bach, the junior minister responsible, and Johnson McNeill, chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, were sacked, Tony Blair promoted Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, who bore ultimate responsibility, to the Foreign Office.

    Mr McNeill was eventually paid off by Defra after drawing his £114,000 salary for nearly nine months but Sir Brian Bender, the Defra permanent secretary, to whom Mr McNeill reported, was promoted to the Department of Trade and Industry.

    Sir Brian was one of a group of officials who was told by Government business advisers six months before the system went live that it stood only a 40 per cent chance of working.

    The role of Andy Lebrecht, the senior official responsible for the payments policy, who briefed ministers on whether the complicated system chosen to make the payments would work may be examined. He still works at Defra.

    The system is still broken, those responsible aren't held to account and the Minister now in charge is too busy running a "virtual campaign" against Brown (not that he will stand but he may get some serious loving from Brown as a result) to worry about his departmental melt down.

    Posted by The Englishman at 6:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack



    March 2, 2007
    Mary Ann Sieghart on David Miliband
    A history lesson for Miliband:
    Mary Ann Sieghart

    ...if Mr Brown were to lose the next election for Labour, Mr Miliband’s best hope would be Leader of the Opposition — and Labour could be out of power for the rest of his political life.

    Miliband is only 41, does Mary Ann think Labour will be in the wilderness for twenty years and so he must run for Leader now? Certainly she seems to be a fan...

    My guess is that a large phalanx of MPs, including senior Cabinet ministers, will beg Mr Miliband to run. Yesterday he gave a presentation to Cabinet on climate change, and according to one of his colleagues, “He was brilliant. He grasped all the complexities, didn’t lecture us and had a great lightness of touch. He was amazing, I have to say.”

    David, I think you have scored!

    Posted by The Englishman at 1:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack



    January 7, 2007
    Miliband goes on adventure.
    Fish and chip shops are dangerous places for politicians, as Labour spin doctors know. Peter Mandelson’s image never recovered after he mistook the mushy peas for guacamole at his local chippie in Hartlepool; and in these health-conscious times, it wouldn’t do for an ambitious young cabinet minister to be seen tucking in to such fatty fare with too much alacrity.

    So it’s a surprise to find David Miliband, the environment secretary, carefree when he arrives for the reopening of Colmans of South Shields, an award-winning fish and chip shop in his constituency.

    Indeed Miliband is practically skipping with enthusiasm...

    “The food here’s fantastic, and I’m having full lashings,”


    A cross between Fotherington-Thomas and Billy Bunter - what a jolly little chap our Boy David is!


    So how is the environment secretary going to get people to change the way they behave? While cynics and those with vested interests mock the efforts of individuals as small beer, questioning whether recycling the odd baked bean can and composting tea bags is worth the trouble given the dismal bigger picture, Miliband is convinced we must all do our bit.

    “Individuals can make a difference,” he says. “If you count energy, transport and food, 44% of total emissions come from households. Individuals will make the difference between cracking and not cracking this global warming phenomenon.

    Who could mock such rosy cheeked optimism, don't you just want to ruffle his hair and give him half a crown to spend at the tuck shop and leave all the worrying to the grown ups?

    Posted by The Englishman at 6:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
     
  15. HARRA1

    HARRA1 New Member

    From: "Judith Fletcher" <judith@fionahallmep.co.uk>
    To: paul_harrison1956@yahoo.com
    Subject: RE: sea angling licence
    Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:20:33 +0100
    Dear Mr Harrison



    Thank you for your email to Fiona Hall MEP regarding The Marine Bill which is currently open for consultation with DEFRA. It would be most useful if you could outline what specific parts of the Marine Bill White Paper are of concern to you and your organisation as this is not completely clear in the email.



    This will help Fiona to respond to your enquiry. As this bill is still at the consultation stage it is important that your group formally respond to the consultation with your concerns. Is this something that you have already done?



    I look forward to hearing from you soon.



    Kind regards



    Judith Fletcher

    Caseworker



    Office of Fiona Hall MEP

    55a Old Elvet

    Durham

    DH1 3HN



    T: (0191) 383 0119

    F: (0191) 375 7519

    E: judith@fionahallmep.co.uk



    NOTE: Information in this email is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You should not otherwise copy it, retransmit it, use or disclose its contents unless permission to do so is explicitly stated. Views expressed in personal emails do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the Liberal Democrats.





    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul Harrison [mailto:paul_harrison1956@yahoo.com]
    Sent: 14 May 2007 11:41
    To: fiona@fionahallmep.co.uk
    Subject: sea angeling licence



    Fiona I wonder if you could look into this for me and comment so this can be published on the fishing sites. Please look at this link as well http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/north-east-coast-fishing/rsa-strategy-bulletin-board/0/ please note I have also sent a copy of this to CHRIS HUHME





    April 19 2007 DAVID MILIBAND M.P.paul Harrison







    Dear Sir:

    After reading the letter you sent to Mr Graham Slesser on the marine-bill and reading the report on the same from your department, we the members of the Recreational sea angling (your department wording) group would like to arrange a meeting to voice our views and fears over the cost and implementation of this bill. Under the pretence of helping improve the environment and marine life of which we mostly support I feel this bill is proposed to help the government to pay for the new offshore wind farms of which it proposes to build to help sustain the power supply for the future. My thoughts firstly go to your report to where it says it would wait for Scotland to implement the law first before England so I wonder is there some division between the UK on this law, and if Scotland do not implement the charge then will England still go ahead as has been the case in other Scot/English issues. We then come to the issue of the charge being implemented to boats that fish within waters within the 12 mile radiuses from the shelf, I wonder if this will not just force boats further out so by making them enter water that could be more dangerous. If this was the case then anyone who would end up in difficulty would have to call on the lifeboat for help at further cost to the taxpayers of this country. If a boat returns and has only fished outside the limit will there be a landing charge for fish brought home but caught outside the 12 mile limit. Maybe this could be classed as Duty Free. As you have already indicated there could be some 800,000 licensed sea anglers in line for your stealth tax that may bring in £538 million per year (your report from The Drew Report) we feel this is an unjust tax on something that is done for pleasure and not gain. If you get moved to sports minister next cabinet re-shuffle would you impose a tax for football supporters to help pay for the 2012 Olympics. We understand from your letter to Mr Slessor that we only have until 8th June as a deadline for comments, I wonder if we need to get Legal help to stall this bill going through until we have more time to understand it better. As time is short I will send this to your office at DEFRA and also at Parlament as you are busy with the local Elections, I hope you find the time to reply promptly as we need to make plans ourselves before your deadline. Please note this is sent also to all opposition party’s for their comments and will be posted on our website at http://www.nesa.co.uk/forums

    SINCERELY, HARRA. P.S.HARRISON

    Just so you can remember me I stood at Prudho South ward and met you in Hexham Market with the Lib Dems



    thanks Paul Harrison

    Railway Cottage

    Greenshaw Plain

    Hexham

    NE462PJ Tel 01434 609298 mob 07984027695






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

    Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
     
  16. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    RSA Strategy Consultation May now take place this autumn.

    http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Political-News/Bass_MLS_Decision_Latest.html

    Al has been quiet with regards to the RSA Strategy for some time. But it hasn't gone away, Unfortunately.
     
  17. Leon Roskilly

    Leon Roskilly New Member

    Now thats what I call a Recreational Sea Angling Strategy

    See:

    http://www.regional.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/media.nsf/regionalheadlines/aa4823bdc754b41ac82573590015eabe?opendocument
     
  18. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Interesting one Leon, at least they sound like they mean business. Do you have any more news on when our version of the Strategy will be rolled out for consultation ?
     
  19. Leon Roskilly

    Leon Roskilly New Member

    The consultation document is available at:

    http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/mp/mp225/fmp225.pdf

    The consultation runs for 6 months, taking them through to March.
     
  20. Leon Roskilly

    Leon Roskilly New Member

    Might not be long before we all get a chance to have a say on DEFRA's RSA Strategy.

    See: http://www.sacn.org.uk/Conservation-and-Political-News/RSA_Strategy_Coming.html
     

Share This Page