rich66
Well-known member
I’m not a sea fisherman, but this sounds ridiculous. How can they even think an angler and rod can have the impact a trawler can ?
New review of marine zones
- Thread starter rich66
- Start date
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I am glad you highlighted this, I have long been an advocate of marine zones but the banning of pleasure angling from them is totally unnecessary. As you say the impact is very small compared to what commercial fishing can do. I suggest this implies a general anti angling stance by those in power or at the least they have no regard or understanding of it.
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
They make a pigs ear of it all, have been doing for years. I have been sort of hoping that leaving the EU and all their failed fishing policies might be better for us but, I have always said only if we are smart, maybe too much to ask.
rich66
Well-known member
Definitely, the problem as I see it is they form these groups or committees of “experts” and never involve those that actually have a living working knowledge of the area under study.
They should have consulted and had someone from the angling trust on that committee.
Look at the Black Rock Lave fishermen they’ve been told they can’t fish for salmon in the Severn estuary by Natural Resources Wales because of the impact they have on Salmon, but I think they generally catch one a year or something will like that.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
You hit one of the nails on the head there, too many different bodies and organizations, people with a point to prove etc etc. And on this sea fishing they only pay lip service to the commercial fishermen. They should be included and consulted in all of this. Marine zones have been an issue but if they offered them harvesting rights with quotas every 3 / 5 years then it would be less of an issue but I don't think they have thought of that. Marine zones have always been the way to go in my view but don't cut the commercial boys out of it altogether, no need, it will still conserve and sustain.
I don't know so much about the salmon situation but it is probably the same problem; they fail to see that their fishing policy's are not working. The EU have spent 70 years pursuing the same policy and failing to protect stocks; I suspect the same will happen with the salmon.
Markg was right inasmuch as the first rules for fishing were made back in 1970 with agreement by the original 6 member countries, however it is a huge mistake to believe that it had gone unchanged in that time.
In 1976 the EU extended fishing rights from 12 miles to 200 nautical miles with the Common Fisheries Policy agreed in 1983 that had 4 main areas of interest: conservation of stocks, vessels and installations, market controls, and external agreements with other nations.
Further changes were made (in full agreement) in, 1992, 1995, 2009 and 2013, so while it is correct to say that the policy has been in operation for "50 years" it has undergone many changes in that period of time. The 2013 changes being the major change which effectively created the "tilogue" of Parties to work towards general agreement on reforming the CFP
With the uk leaving the Union at the end of this year all fishing rights, quotas and rules will be negotiated in any trade deal that might be negotiated . . . . .
Given the size of the exclusive economic zone, at 25 million square kilometres, it is the largest in the world, so personally I'd not be holding my breath awaiting any major changes in the uk's participation in the fishing of this area. Also the minute contribution that uk fishing makes to the GDP (less than one present) it is not really a major consideration for the uk negotiators other than ots apparent popularity among the population.
In 1976 the EU extended fishing rights from 12 miles to 200 nautical miles with the Common Fisheries Policy agreed in 1983 that had 4 main areas of interest: conservation of stocks, vessels and installations, market controls, and external agreements with other nations.
Further changes were made (in full agreement) in, 1992, 1995, 2009 and 2013, so while it is correct to say that the policy has been in operation for "50 years" it has undergone many changes in that period of time. The 2013 changes being the major change which effectively created the "tilogue" of Parties to work towards general agreement on reforming the CFP
With the uk leaving the Union at the end of this year all fishing rights, quotas and rules will be negotiated in any trade deal that might be negotiated . . . . .
Given the size of the exclusive economic zone, at 25 million square kilometres, it is the largest in the world, so personally I'd not be holding my breath awaiting any major changes in the uk's participation in the fishing of this area. Also the minute contribution that uk fishing makes to the GDP (less than one present) it is not really a major consideration for the uk negotiators other than ots apparent popularity among the population.
Last edited:
rich66
Well-known member
While I agree with our fishing being a small part of GDP. It has the potential now to be greater than it is. I wonder how many jobs have been lost though the degradation of UK trawler industry, and how many it could possibly create. If you could get people to do it.
Mainly my concern was how this latest idea will affect the pleasure angler on the coast.
Mainly my concern was how this latest idea will affect the pleasure angler on the coast.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
Those affected will have to travel a lot further for a bit of sea fishing. I live on the coast and if an area like that was imposed locally I would probably give it up. Which is probably what many would do. It could put more pressure on coastal tackle shops, bait diggers etc that rely heavily on the sea fishing/day tripping shore/pier angler trade.
Seeing as line fishing is often touted as a sustainable environmental friendly way of catching fish but not for whoever is proposing this silly idea, short sighted and not very intelligent, a deadly combination.
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I appreciate all that Peter but it has still mostly been all about good intent without actually having a lot of success. Your legal mind will understand that side of things a lot more than I so, I can only see the bigger picture.
The quota system has not basically been changed much. This system has always taken precedent over conservation zones in the EU and I think zones should take precedence, not ditching the quota system altogether but zones will help stocks and with a bit of imagination and more consideration given to the commercial side - could be more successful. I think we could change that, whether we will who knows. What with the present hard stances going on - on fishing rights; what deal will eventually be struck or a no deal leave; it is still all on the cards and will be for a long time I think.
The GDP figure hides a lot of facts. I live in a fishing community, the fleet does well so does everyone else, the council get more money to spend on services, all the business get some sort of knock on effect. We are an island with many such communities, a bit of math doesn't reflect this. Whether more zonal fishing will help them is debatable, depends on how it is done but any improvement in stocks has to, so that always has to be the best long term aim.
Last edited:
Clodhopper
Well-known member
Is it conceivable that HMG sees a blanket ban on fishing the reserves as an interim measure to stifle any debate about quotas etc., let stocks recover and then re-allow certain methods once an interim deal with the EU has lapsed?
Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk
no-one in particular
Well-known member
It its all so up in the air at the moment, funny that fishing has become one of the major stumbling blocks to a deal however, I always said the EU were not going to give this up easily but I thought HMG would trade it off more easily than they have done so far. It will probably change once we get nearer the deadlines but I wouldn't predict anything at the moment. The whole Brexit thing has been a mess of indecision anyway and will be for many years yet
As to a ban on sea anglers doing their thing anywhere for whatever reason, it would be a pointless and damaging thing to coastal communities, it does very little harm to stocks, a lot of trade to seaside communities and not only fishing, cafes, pubs shops etc get a knock on, they often bring their families with them for fishing day trips.
At a time like this when coastal communities have taken a big hit on their economies like everyone else, to be considering such a thing is plain stupid. If there was to be a big gain for the fish maybe, but I can't see it.
I think a lot of these officials who involve themselves in these decisions have little understanding about the subject; ivory towers etc.
Last edited:
The main problem for the fishing industry in the uk is that the vast majority of what is caught is still exported to . . . Europe . . . we simply don't eat the types of fish that are now caught commercially around the coastline, and most of what we do eat is exported from EU and EEA countries.
For the EU it is a matter of the principles of the Single Market so I would not expect them to cave in on this unless there was a very large quid quo pro; for the uk it is one of those topics that is far more emotive than it is one of net worth . . . . always was and always will be.
As for a ban on sea anglers I really don't see that as such a huge problem for coastal economies as they are far more concerned with the shops opening unrestricted, cafes, bars and pubs opening and holiday makers returning, and that is far more likely now that so many continental destinations are still not allowing visitors from Britain.
For the EU it is a matter of the principles of the Single Market so I would not expect them to cave in on this unless there was a very large quid quo pro; for the uk it is one of those topics that is far more emotive than it is one of net worth . . . . always was and always will be.
As for a ban on sea anglers I really don't see that as such a huge problem for coastal economies as they are far more concerned with the shops opening unrestricted, cafes, bars and pubs opening and holiday makers returning, and that is far more likely now that so many continental destinations are still not allowing visitors from Britain.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
That is only temporary, anglers banned from a fishing zone will be for ever and the economic loss permanent. People day trip to the coast mainly these days not holidays in normal times and some of that is anglers and their families who spend. It is proportional but no sea side town will want to lose it. For what is the question, some doubtful impact on species in a zone.
Last edited: