Recent Comments

  • With all the rules and regulations and paper filling now involved in teaching juniors in whatever sport I applaud all those take the time and trouble to carry out junior instruction.
    I am a qualified instructor in fly fishing teaching adults, original qualification under STANIC which took two days to carry out. I then attended a few short courses under the auspicious of Game Angling Instructors Association to attain Level two status.
    I shudder to think how much time it would take and at what financial cost involved in attaining a similar qualification to day, especially ADB qualifications.
    I am only afraid that the numbers of those prepared to do so will be diminished by this increasingly onerous task.

    10 years 20 weeks ago
  • Hi, First of all thanks for your input both in the questionnaire as well as here. As the person responsible for the project I'd just like to clarify. By 'outside of remit', we do not mean that these are not important issues, which they clearly are. We simply mean that, as researchers broadly within social science, analysing water quality and fish stocks is not within our scope of abilities. That is the preserve of fishery, biological and ecological scientists rather than us. As one fishery scientist recently put it to us 'we research the fish; you research the people'. Of course there is a need for both approaches to work more closely together, something we are looking into developing this year.

    Also, we are, and have been, disseminating findings of what is important to anglers to those who are responsible for these areas of work, but for a project that is funded to understand the social and community benefits of angling, run by social researchers, the impact of angling on fish stocks and water quality is outside of what this project can deliver. Thanks. Adam Brown

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • The fact remains that after visiting ports along the west coast and speaking to recreational fishermen there are very few fish left to catch. Most small boats are not going out to fish as there are no fish left. Most common points raised are that the commercials are netting very close to the shore particularly at night and sweeping the sea clean of fish. Mostly non-british boats. I have not seen this myself but when you visit most ports along the Cumbria coast for example and see that boats have been laid up [not in use]the comments have substance. Show me a small boat owner who doesn't want to go fishing.In the Mersey we have had the worst winters fishing for many years. Very few cod, a few scarce codling up to 3lbs and very few whiting. Even the Rhyl charter boats have left the Liverpool Marina as so few fish are being caught. Where have all the fish gone? RSA anglers do not make a significant impact on fish stocks as few are taken for the pot even if we can find them to catch. So either the stocks have been fished out by the commercials or they have just disappeared.
    Steve

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • Just a point.

    You incorrectly list football, cricket, rugby etc as high participation sports alongside angling.

    This is incorrect. Angling is a high partcipation sport. The rest are all highly WATCHED activities.

    It is very important you understand this and yet its in the first few paragraphs of your Interim Report.

    I got no further.

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • They can co-oexist - but changes need to be made and quickly. RSA needs to put on politically exactly the same footing as commercial fishing. Not lip service as it is now on the NEW SFCs - what a joke they are.

    RSA fishes for relatively few commercially important species and yet the worth of RSA to the UK economy is at least equal to the whole of the UK commercial fishing industry. Just think of the potential if RSA fish stocks were managed for recreational purposes rather than commercial ones. That is the vision - just think of it.

    Check out the Drew and Net Benefits report. How many of the recommendations of that report are in law - not one.

    Not ONE species of fish in the UK is managed for RSA - ALL are managed for commercial gain.

    That says its all really. As does the MLS for ceratin species. Look at bass, the MLS is set BELOW their breeding size - beggars belief.

    Until RSA is seen for what it is - the socially and environmental future of our coastlines then forget co-existence. Commercial fishing employs a tiny amount of people - give them a tiny amount of influence. Until now their influence is hugely out of proportion to their importance.

    Angling Research needs to wake up. Get onto the representative groups, get onto the forums are find out the real situation.

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • RSA and commercial fishing can co-exist. But it will take a monumental shift in political will to make them.

    Not one species of fish in the UK is managed for recreational purposes. ALL fish are managed for commercial gain. (I'm ignoring Tope - they have no RSA management plan!). Fish such as bass are exploited and harvested BELOW their breeding size - think about it.

    RSA is, conservatively, worth an equal amount to the UK economy as commercial fishing and yet RSA targets currently a relatively small number of commercially important fish. No-one realises there are relatively few commercial fisherman (only 12,000 ish and 6,000 of those are in Scotland) subsidised and cosseted by our politcal masters- why? Who knows.

    It is a national disgrace that RSA gets so little money, gets trampled upon and ignored when RSAs right to the fish resource is equally important - if not more so when one considers the environmental and social benefits that RSA has.

    Angling Research needs to wake up and start understanding this complex issue. Get onto the repersentaive sea angling bodies - then get on the forums and start asking for RSA input. Perhaps you'll really begin to get to grips with it. Look at the Drew report and the Net Benefits report and then weigh those up against the huge commercial fishing industry political animal created by Westminster. As I said - a disgrace.

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • You failed to mention the UK subsidies that we as UK Tax payers fork out year in year out to keep european commercial fleets afloat,(probably far outways the amount RSA's spend on foreign goods), what about the 100 million pounds the uk provided in the early 80's to assist in rebuilding of the spanish and Portuguease fleets, and continue to do so to this day. Money that should have stayed in the UK to rebuild our broken fishing fleet, but instead it went abroad. The Government instead of handing Millions of our £'s to Europe should have left the UK fleet to manage itself and spent that money here on our boys. So in all the economy is not doing so well in terms of UK commercials is it.
    Your figures are way out my friend.

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • I suppose the main difference between RSA and commercials might be that RSAtake fish for their own consumption. This usually involves a lot of expenditure on tackle, travel, bait, waterproof gear etc. etc.

    The fact that 75% of angling gear is imported is not the fault of anglers. Don't forget that all of that tackle is subject to mark up by the retailer (money into circulation and tax to the government) and VAT, more tax to the government! I for one would love to see British tackle companies expand and produce our equipment. The truth is that successive governments have demolished the UK's manufacturing industry and now we have to import goods. If you want to compare it, what is the percentage of British cars/refrigerators/televisions/DVD players etc that is bought by the average UK housewife? A lot less than 25% I can assure you.

    "In socio-economic terms RSA is substantially less efficient than commercial fishing as a means to supply the population with the fish considered by nutritionists as essential for healthy living"

    Dead right, because RSAs don't supply fish to the supermarkets for the housewife to eat. People who do that are called commercial fishermen not anglers. The clue is in the name.

    Negative impact on the environment? Discarded tackle? You mean when an angler buys expensive tackle he hurls it around the beaches rocks etc. for fun? Most anglers go to great lengths to retrieve lost tackle BECAUSE it is expensive AND it could hurt wildlife.

    One day, some people might wake up to the fact that RSAs do contribute to local economies, some local economies would suffer if anglers were restricted and that catching your own supper supplies a better tasting, more nutritious and more eco-friendly meal for the family than a sunken eyed, flabby flanked farmed bass from somewhere in the Med!

    If you don't like angling don't do it but don't criticise people that do by mis-using and distorting evidence to satisfy some personal crusade.

    Worms

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • I was pleased to hear that this research project was being undertaken and took the time to give my input. It is disappointing that when it has been identified that the most important issues are of water quality and fish stocks that this is 'outside of remit' which begs the question, if the research is worth undertaking, and identifies a major issue which is 'outside of remit', now what? Is it to continue and ignore the major issue? Didn't see any mention of Otters either, which I'm sure is of major concern to many anglers.

    10 years 21 weeks ago
  • I have no commercial interest in the "Public Resource" which is a dangerous term to use when talking of our seas. It implies a public right to exploit it, a right the ordinary housewife wants, so that she can go to the supermarket fish counter & buy what she wants at a reasonable price. That is what most people want, and what our politicians, backed by nutritionists,have given them.

    Vast European subsidies in the days before the alarm was sounded have left the Commercial fleet over-indebted, and chasing too few fish within the quota system to be viable. This in the face of an insatiable market where the prices are kept artificially low by the base price guarantee scheme.

    The current system encourages discard - dead fish, Quota restrictions, bycatch limits, price grading, all result in waste. Waste that angling doesn't generate.

    Fine, but angling can't provide the fish required on a daily basis to feed the population in Europe the recommended amounts of Omega 6 or whatever the nutritionists recommend for health. Only the commercials can.

    We anglers have to accept we are not mainstream fishermen as far as feeding the masses is concerned. We have to accept that the commercial fisherman contributes earnings to our national economy though exports, whilst we import rods & reels to the nation's cost.

    In national socio-economic terms,we are minor players.

    10 years 22 weeks ago