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 ?
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 yetIs 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
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.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.