Dave has a good question - one I've been asked a number of times. The simple answer is, without it being made law to indicate on the national census form whether you are a recreational sea angler or not, there is no way to count every angler. No fool-proof way, anyhow. So why bother?
It's one of a number of approaches I'm trying, to try and get a decent figure for the number of anglers in this country - so that I can have my ducks in a row when I'm asked or have to volounteer how many anglers there are, what's their voting potential, what are they are worth to the economy etc. At the moment all we have are estimates.
A large part of the problem with angling as a sport or pass-time is that it's generally carried on out of sight, over the horizon, at the back of beyond or in the dark. The non-fishing public probably never give us anglers a thought - unlike other sports that are forever on tv. Curling gets more coverage, for Pete's sake.
This 'oversight' doubtless extends to our political representatives, for the most part. There are a few who are keen to talk with us. Of the remainder, I doubt that any would list angling among the top 100 issues in the country - except a few who would probably assume the salmon issue is the height and width of it.
I don't know how may anglers there are in this country, or of that number how many are aware of angling issues either at home, in the UK, or indeed globally. I can assure you that there is a lot of stuff going on, particularly in relation to protection/conservation - spearheaded by various interest groups - but whether their interest stems from bass, mullet, conger, shark, salmon, sea trout, flounder etc - they're getting organised, defining their agendas and getting plans in place to protect and enhance their sport in their countries.
If I give as an example that there is a process underway to review the minimum landing size of bass in the UK, how many anglers here are aware of the process, or what the options are? Or the impacts - not just on bass but on angling tourism etc? Or that it might well go a lot further than just the UK and become a European directive that would superceed the regulations we have here now? Suppose that happens - what input could we as anglers say we have had here on that outcome?
I can assure you that if the bass MLS in the UK is increased the impact will be this: In a few short years they will have a lot more and a lot bigger bass in the UK than we have in Ireland. They already make a good stab at protecting their nursery areas. They arrest illegal netters and confiscate gear and boats, not ignore reports of it. The current interest from UK anglers in coming here for bass will cease, no more glossy spreads in Sea Angler etc. No more angling tourism, no more revenue. No reason at all at that point to spend any money on enforcing the very few rules we have that might protect fish stocks.
As an angler, you might wonder what on earth difference this could make to you. Well, my theory is this. Given the importance of, and emphasis placed on, tourism in this country, no moves to protect fish stocks of any species is going to be enacted or enforced unless it can be demonstrated that failure to do so will impact tourism revenues - even domestic tourism. All those ads on telly advocating short or weekend breaks in Ireland/Northern Ireland are aimed at the domestic market, otherwise we'd not be seeing them on out 'local' tv stations. Part of our problem is, I believe, that the Dept of Tourism has no idea how much domestic anglers spend going to and staying near different venues around the country. Since as far as I can tell nobody knows how many anglers there are in this country, it would be a pointless exercise to theorize on what they might be worth to the economy, or how may votes they represent etc. The Dept of the Marine is similarly ignorant. At worst, as a group, as a sport, we don't exist. At best, the IFSA's membership will be seen as the be-all and end-all of angling.
I've had many, many mails from sea anglers (thanks, folks) who are not affiliated with any club, so I know basing an assumption on the IFSA's membership would be just plain wrong.
Given the high (in comparative term) media profile of the SSDNN campaign, even given the acknowledged value of salmon-related angling tourism, they're having a hell of a time trying to get our current government to act in a decisive and timely manner. But change will be brought about, even if we have to await a change of government first. One can only hope this is soon, before Pat the cope joins the ranks of Sigur?r Islefsson, Ketil Ketilson and J?n Brandsson - they killed their own version of the golden goose and their shame lives on long after them.
If nothing else, this should act as a salutory lesson to all anglers here that they must stand up and be counted and speak with one voice. I, for one, am not happy to read here and elsewhere on a weekly basis (if not more often) of inshore areas being trawled, seined, dredged, gill netted, drift netted, stake netted or otherwise ruined for all angling intents and purposes.
Even as I write, politicians from across Europe are this week carving up for another year a fish pie, of theoretical proportions to be sure, ignoring whatever warnings and recommendations the scientific community offer. The reason for this? Because they acknowledge that overfishing is rampant - thus the scientific models are flawed and as such can be disregarded completely. Is it not odd, then, that the criminal activity (listen not to fishermen crying about being criminalised) of stealing fish and lying about landings and earnings should be rewarded with further opportunities to do likewise and have this activity decriminalised - one fisherman's reason for wanting fishing offences decriminalised was that he had to do it to survive, then spoiled it by saying if he got a criminal record for fishing offences he wouldn't be able to get to take his kids to the States to visit Disneyland!
But so long as the politicians can tell the fishermen to keep fishing and the fishermen keep voting for the politicians, the only effective two marine stakeholders will be happy. (All will return on Friday claiming 'victory' on one hand and foretelling of starving fishermen's women and children within months on the other - all in time for Christmas.) And this will go on until there are not enough fish left to make it worth putting to sea. That's the point when the value of the catch is exceeded by the cost of fuel and other boat's expenses. (Crews are generally paid a share of what remains after the boat's expenses have been paid.) Next will come a round of subsidies (i.e. - you work to pay taxes to pay fishermen not to fish - sense?) to support fishermen until stocks 'recover' and we all saw how this worked out on the Grand Banks....
So, what can we do to head off this future? Well, like I say, the first thing any politician will look at before supporting any cause is the number of potential votes available. This is true whether you want a street light at the end of your road or the Groceries Order repealed. We can only count those who want to be counted or are aware that they might be counted, adding this to the figures for registered anglers and quote a margin of error - and come up with a number. That number will be key to whether anglers and their needs being recognised and provided for - or not. So, any chance you get to add to the body of knowledge on the number of anglers - take it. Encourge them to join a club, the SACN - anything.
How do you propose to count the anglers wo do not use the Internet or who do not visit this site?
What self-respecting angler doesn't use this site anyway?