Press Release - Does Recreational Angling contribute.....

[Al and Jordan]

my concern would be that it would just be another way of introducing a stealth tax on anglers
for a tenner a head i can't see it being economically viable to think that we would actually get anything back out of it as anglers. by the time you take out all the forementioned overheads there would only be but coppers left to actually put something back into our sport. just another way for the government to boost the coffers.
i would'nt mind paying a licence if there was going to a significant investment back into our sport, but when you consider that co councils can't even put rubbish bins at popular marks, i think we are all living in la la land to think that we'll get anything back out of it
it would be something like asking turkeys to vote for christmas

[Bradan]

Oh and while they say they are looking into exploring Angling with one hand ... with the other they banned fishing from Greystones beach! just read it now!! grrrrrrr (new thread being posted )

They in the first instance would be IFI. They in the second instance would be a local authority. Not the same.

Comming soon to a beach near you:

Baliff:

"Welcome sir! Just popped down for a couple of hours? Have you booked? Never mind. But mind showing me your angling licence whilst you're here? Thanks very much. Now, I've a busload of French and German anglers booked in already, grand lads and we need all the custom they bring us what with the economy still down in the dumps and all, so you'll have to shift on once they show up. So, apart from the licence which you're grand on, you'll also need a permit to actually fish this beach. Just like the Salmon boys and their system of permits & licences, really. I can sell you that right now.

Oh look, there's the bus with the French & German lads already. They're early, must be keen to get at all the Bass. You lads better move out of the way now, you don't want to hold them up or annoy them, do you? They have booked, you know.

FFS, paranoid much? You know very well that sea angling is a free resource and can't be privatised in the way you describe. Ridiculous post. Oh, and what's a baliff/bailiff?

there treating this like sea angling is only new to this country.you think they could easily work out how much its worth by the vat returns on angling related gear and hotels and guest houses from around the country.i cant help but expect bad news after this is done.i know a lot of lobbying has been done over the past few years to get attention to this market but this could be a can of bad worms to the ordinary joe fisherman.going on past expiriences do you trust them?

The survey is not about sea angling, it is about all angling. It is about finding out how many anglers we have, and how much angling is worth to the economy. If you can show that salmon angling is worth €100 million to the economy, while commercial salmon fishing is worth €5 million, you have a good argument to put salmon angling ahead of commercial fishing. If you can show that bass angling is worth €200 million while commercial bass fishing would be worth €10 million, you have a good argument to stop commercial fishing being reintroduced.

sorry lads this is a eu directive...this debate is raging already in england,where there having a angling survey2012...a lot of sea anglers,myself included, recon this is, so they can get numbers to see if its worth bringing in a licence.....i will not be taking part....

No, its not an EU directive. The EU directive you're thinking of requires member states to quantify how many sea fish are being caught by angling. This survey doesn't ask any questions that would help answer that. This is about how much anglers spend, and what that is worth to the economy.

dont you remember the salmon angling licence fiasco....same thing...and now its a rich mans game again...

What fiasco woud that be Noel? The one where the licence fee was increased and ALL the extra revenue was ring-fenced and put to use in salmon conservation projects around the country? Not that this survey is anything to do with a licence, but carry on being paranoid if you want to... For what its worth, the licence cost €64 in 2006, all of which went into govt coffers, before the conservation stamp was introduced. It now costs €100, of which the govt gets €50, the other €50 is spent on salmon conservation projects. A fiasco alright...

I know we're probably digressing a little but seeing as though it was mentioned I'd like to say I wouldn't mind paying a licence fee either, as long as the funds are invested in promoting, developing and protecting the sea angling sector.

John D.

Yep, its totally off the point, but if a licence were to be introduced I would be of the same opinion. The conservation stamp part of the salmon licence is ring fenced and invested back into salmon conservation, a similar system would have to operate for a sea angling or general angling licence IMO.

[JimH]

Some good words Bradan, nice one.

[twinkle]

yes brandon some good points but after looking at the full survey on the other side of the channel i would have to agree with doggie................. The project will also enable the UK to meet the needs of European legislation, which requires EU member states to collect and report data on recreational catches of certain species:

•the EU Control Regulation requires the reporting of recreational catches of stocks subject to recovery plans (charter boats only)
•the EU Data Collection Framework requires the reporting of catches of bass, cod and sharks (covering all forms of recreational fishing from boat and shore).
Cefas' this is attached to the end of there recreational survey and is an eu directive. it still begs the question can we
trust them

[Bradan]

yes brandon some good points but after looking at the full survey on the other side of the channel i would have to agree with doggie................. The project will also enable the UK to meet the needs of European legislation, which requires EU member states to collect and report data on recreational catches of certain species:

•the EU Control Regulation requires the reporting of recreational catches of stocks subject to recovery plans (charter boats only)
•the EU Data Collection Framework requires the reporting of catches of Bass, cod and sharks (covering all forms of recreational fishing from boat and shore).
Cefas' this is attached to the end of there recreational survey and is an eu directive. it still begs the question can we
trust them

Sorry, am I missing something? Did we rejoin the UK? Cos that survey is in the UK, not Ireland. It has nothing to do with the survey here. This survey has nothing to do with reporting catches of any species. There is nothing attached to the end of this survey. There are no extra questions about catches of bass, cod, sharks or any other species. I've seen and read the whole questionnaire, and its nothing to do with any of that. It is solely about the economic contribution of angling (game, coarse and sea) to the economy. Can't make it any clearer than that.

[Tanglerat]

Indeedy, my post was perhaps a bit overly tounge-in-cheek. But it does perhaps crystalise some concerns of mine.

Why should we have to have a licence for a "free" resource? Why have a licence for a fundamental right? If you succumb to a licencing regieme, it's no longer a right but a privelige, and a privelige can be withheld or withdrawn.

This banging on about the economic benifets of angling: Well, shame on the powers-that-be if that's what it takes to protect our natural resources. If it doesn't have an economic value therefore it's worthless and not worth protecting? Is that the subtext?

(re salmon licence costs Bradan - you're being a little bit disingenious in your post. It cost €64 in 2006 - that soon doubled in price before recently being reduced again somewhat. No matter, it's money out of my pocket and into govt's coffers. That's the bottom line from my point of view, it matter little how they split up, account for and assign tasks to that money. It's still €100 out of my hard-earneds.)

[twinkle]

Sorry, am I missing something? Did we rejoin the UK? Cos that survey is in the UK, not Ireland. It has nothing to do with the survey here. This survey has nothing to do with reporting catches of any species. There is nothing attached to the end of this survey. There are no extra questions about catches of Bass, cod, sharks or any other species. I've seen and read the whole questionnaire, and its nothing to do with any of that. It is solely about the economic contribution of angling (game, coarse and sea) to the economy. Can't make it any clearer than that................................................................................................[/quote] does it not ring alarm bells with you that the heading on that survey is the same as ours?and whether its on ours at the moment is trivial as we know its on the way,and i think if we checked Portugal or some other member state we will find them all doing the same survey so il ask you the same question again do you trust them ? because i sure as hell dont.and i know were not in the uk. but were no longer the republic of ireland either were again being governed by a tyrant across the sea. we sold our souls to the bankers and we have no say anymore. we have to take what they dish out .so dress it up and put a fancy name on it call it a survey i call it a eu directive

[Bradan]

(re salmon licence costs Bradan - you're being a little bit disingenious in your post. It cost €64 in 2006 - that soon doubled in price before recently being reduced again somewhat. No matter, it's money out of my pocket and into govt's coffers. That's the bottom line from my point of view, it matter little how they split up, account for and assign tasks to that money. It's still €100 out of my hard-earneds.)

I wasn't disingenuous at all, I stated that the licence increased. Even when it doubled, central government still only received half of it - the rest is ring fenced and goes into salmojn conservation projects. The money for those projects is not going to come from anywhere else, govt, EU or IMF are certainly not going to fund them. If you object to contributing to your sport that's your prerogative, but most salmon anglers I speak to (and I speak to a lot) have no problem when they see the benefits. Salmon rivers are about the only fisheries that money is being spent on now, because there is no money for habitat or development work coming from central funding, and I mean zero money. Salmon anglers contribute, and they see their money being spent on salmon rivers. Simples.

Why should we have to have a licence for a "free" resource? Why have a licence for a fundamental right? If you succumb to a licencing regieme, it's no longer a right but a privelige, and a privelige can be withheld or withdrawn.

You can bang on about a licence all you want, but thats not what this survey is about, or intended for. If govt wants to introduce a licence there's prob sweet FA we can do about it, but that's not what this survey is about. Where you get a licence from a survey aimed at showing how much angling contributes to the economy is beyond me.

This banging on about the economic benifets of angling: Well, shame on the powers-that-be if that's what it takes to protect our natural resources. If it doesn't have an economic value therefore it's worthless and not worth protecting? Is that the subtext?

As for economic value, its a pity, but yes that's the only way politicans look at things, and its the only way we can protect our resource. To think otherwise is naive in the extreme.

does it not ring alarm bells with you that the heading on that survey is the same as ours?and whether its on ours at the moment is trivial as we know its on the way,and i think if we checked Portugal or some other member state we will find them all doing the same survey so il ask you the same question again do you trust them ? because i sure as hell dont.and i know were not in the uk. but were no longer the republic of ireland either were again being governed by a tyrant across the sea. we sold our souls to the bankers and we have no say anymore. we have to take what they dish out .so dress it up and put a fancy name on it call it a survey i call it a eu directive

No it doesn't, because I know what the point of the survey is, I've seen all the questions on it, and I know there are no questions that could be used to estimate catches of bass, cod or any other species. Don't know how many times I can point that out. But if you want to see a conspiracy where there is none, knock yourself out...

[twinkle]

this document is nearer to the truth all eu members are required to furnish details of catches see below ............. The project will also enable the UK to meet the needs of European legislation, which requires EU member states to collect and report data on recreational catches of certain species:

•the EU Control Regulation requires the reporting of recreational catches of stocks subject to recovery plans (charter boats only)
•the EU Data Collection Framework requires the reporting of catches of Bass, cod and sharks (covering all forms of recreational fishing from boat and shore).
Cefas' this is attached to the end of there recreational survey and is an eu directive. it still begs the question can we
trust them

[Bradan]

this document is nearer to the truth all eu members are required to furnish details of catches see below ............. The project will also enable the UK to meet the needs of European legislation, which requires EU member states to collect and report data on recreational catches of certain species:

•the EU Control Regulation requires the reporting of recreational catches of stocks subject to recovery plans (charter boats only)
•the EU Data Collection Framework requires the reporting of catches of Bass, cod and sharks (covering all forms of recreational fishing from boat and shore).
Cefas' this is attached to the end of there recreational survey and is an eu directive. it still begs the question can we
trust them

Seriously?! I've answered the question. There is NOTHING attached to the end of the Irish survey. NOTHING!!! There is NOTHING that could be used to fulfil those requirements. NOTHING!!! How many times do this have to be explained to you????

[John D]

I don't think it's wise to look at sea angling as a free resource &/or a fundamental right. I'm not saying it's not but I'm always careful when using that argument. I say this because this is usually one of the arguments many commercial fishermen attempt to use if they're asked not to fish while stocks recover!

It just seems a bit hypocritical us saying it.

John D.

[Tanglerat]

I wasn't disingenuous at all, I stated that the licence increased. Even when it doubled, central government still only received half of it - the rest is ring fenced and goes into salmojn conservation projects.

Are you for real? Are you seriously trying to convince me and any other angler reading this that the govt does not collect all the money? Don't try bandying words like "central government" - I pay my money to a State Agency. That's govt, as far as I'm concerned. They collect it, they spend it.

[Bradan]

I wasn't disingenuous at all, I stated that the licence increased. Even when it doubled, central government still only received half of it - the rest is ring fenced and goes into salmojn conservation projects.

Are you for real? Are you seriously trying to convince me and any other angler reading this that the govt does not collect all the money? Don't try bandying words like "central government" - I pay my money to a State Agency. That's govt, as far as I'm concerned. They collect it, they spend it.

How about you don't try telling me to stop "bandying words" as if I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And while we're at it, stop trying to put words in my mouth. As the mod of this forum, you're being fairly disingenuous yourself.

I never said the government does not collect all the money.

How about I spell it out very simply for you. Money for salmon licences has always gone to central government i.e. it is not used to fund fisheries protection, development, IFI, any of that. It is basically tax. That's what I mean when I "bandy words" like central government.

The salmon conservation stamp part of the salmon licence is ring-fenced i.e. it does not go to central government, or into the black hole that is government finances. Every cent of that part of the licence revenue is spent on salmon conservation. This money is also available to clubs and fishery owners who want to carry out improvements that will benefit salmon stocks. See http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Salmon-M ... ation.html for an application form.

As it happens IFI don't have the staff to carry out all the projects that the ring-fenced money could fund, hence its available to clubs etc, too. That's how ring-fenced it is. And that's what I mean by central government doesn't get that money. Unlike the household charge, it doesn't disappear into the black hole of paying back bank debts, etc. Salmon anglers get to see the benefit of their money.

Sorry if you think I'm bandying words around but I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant

[twinkle]

this survey is part of the marine strategy directive launched by the eu in 2008. all member states has to submit a number of questionnaires to get good enviromental status[ges] by 2020. all states have launched there marine bill s, and all must have imput from the joe public, hench the new approach "our ocean wealth" there is a link here http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/ ... dex_en.htm but no mistake its an eu directive that all member states are involved in since they signed up to it in 2008. they have to show they have made the deadlines set out. july 2012 is the first deadline.

[Bradan]

this survey is part of the marine strategy directive launched by the eu in 2008. all member states has to submit a number of questionnaires to get good enviromental status[ges] by 2020. all states have launched there marine bill s, and all must have imput from the joe public, hench the new approach "our ocean wealth" there is a link here http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/ ... dex_en.htm but no mistake its an eu directive that all member states are involved in since they signed up to it in 2008. they have to show they have made the deadlines set out. july 2012 is the first deadline.

No, its not! Its not part of any EU strategy. This website http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/Pages/Get-Involved.aspx would be the one you're talking about to fulfil that EU requirement. The survey we are talking about in this thread is nothing to do with that. NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Seriously, you've been told several times now but you keep posting to the contrary. I'd almost swear you were trolling...

[doggie3131]

doggie3131 wrote:
sorry lads this is a eu directive...this debate is raging already in england,where there having a angling survey2012...a lot of sea anglers,myself included, recon this is, so they can get numbers to see if its worth bringing in a licence.....i will not be taking part....

No, its not an EU directive. The EU directive you're thinking of requires member states to quantify how many sea fish are being caught by angling. This survey doesn't ask any questions that would help answer that. This is about how much anglers spend, and what that is worth to the economy.

ah HELLO??....

There is a draft Council Regulation on the table. The European Parliament's report is just an opinion and it doesn't matter much what is said in that report. What counts is the ongoing negotiations among mnister representatives in a Council working group whcih meets every Thursday. There are 116 Articles to be discussed. Art 47 is named "Recreational Fisheries", it will be discussed within the next month or so. The Commission hopes that the new Regulation will be adopted second half or at the end of this year.

Notes and links:

Article 47- Recreational fisheries

1. Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.

2. Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.

3. Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.

4. The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.

PROPOSAL for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, Brussels, 14.11.2008, COM(2008) 721 final, 2008/0216 (CNS). In all EU languages:
EUR-Lex - 52008PC0721 - EN

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy IMPACT ASSESSMENT {SEC(2008) 2760}:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...760:FIN:EN:PDF

Other links:
Article 47 (Updated 10 Feb 09)

Response submitted by the European Anglers Alliance (EAA)
http://www.eaa-europe.eu/fileadmin/t...ponse_FIN2.pdf

EAA Notes: News and Press - Current Year
CFP, EU's Common Fisheries Policy

13 February 2009
EAA’s first round of comments to the European Parliament's rapporteur MEP Raül Romeva i Rueda:
http://www.eaa-europe.eu/fileadmin/t...dments_fin.pdf

[doggie3131]

The definition of marine recreational fishing in Europe
M.G. Pawson
a,
, H. Glenn
b,1
, G. Padda
a,2
a
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK
b
Centre for the Economics & Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of Portsmouth, Boathouse no 6, College Road,
HM Naval Base, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 3LJ, UK
Received 4 June 2007; received in revised form 2 July 2007; accepted 9 July 2007
Abstract
To describe marine recreational fisheries, their socio-economic importance and interactions with other fisheries and the environment, it
is necessary to define what is meant by recreational fishing. A review of European Member States’ national legislation revealed
considerable variation in ownership and access to coastal waters/fisheries, and in the legal distinction between sport fishing and other
recreational uses of marine fisheries and their commercial (catching for sale and profit) counterparts. Together with a re-examination of
existing definitions, this has enabled us to suggest definitions that may be used to develop a common approach to evaluate participation
and socio-economic value of marine recreational fishing, and guide attempts to legislate for the benefit and development of marine
recreational fishing across Europe.
Crown Copyright r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.....SOCIO ECONOMIC VALUE....that says it all for me.......

[Bradan]

Noel, you can post all the links you want. If this survey was aimed at fulfillling the requirements of the EU Directive, it would be aimed at sea anglers, and would ask questions about catches of different species. But it's aimed at game, coarse and sea anglers, and doesn't ask those questions. Yourself, twinkle and a few others have assumed on the basis of a press release that you know what this is about. A press release! The questionnaire is still being piloted, and I've suggested changes that will make it shorter and have less duplication (it takes about 20 minutes to answer the bloody thing), but I have seen all the questions and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them could be used to fulfil the requirements of the EU directive that you're so worried about.

Now I don't expect you to believe me, and you can carry on posting all the links you like and claim this and claim that, and fair enough, you don't have to participate (it is a voluntary survey after all), but you know what, its still going to go ahead, there will still be an estimate at the end of the day of the value of angling to the economy, and guess what, life will still go on and you can still go fishing. And they'll still have to find some way to answer the EU directive, because this ain't it!

Now for anyone that isn't a conspiracy theorist, I hope if you're asked to participate that you do. When it comes to fighting for our sport at the government table, state agencies and angling federations alike are hampered by not being able to call on figures that will back up their case about the importance of angling to our economy. That's what this is really about

[Rampent Wreckfish]

I am with Bradan on this.
I think its very important that us anglers prove what angling brings to this country.

[twinkle]

I am with Bradan on this.
I think its very important that us anglers prove what angling brings to this country.

i would agree up to a point yes it gives anglers a point to argue with facts but at what cost.there has been a very strong lobby for this survey in the last 10 years every minister emailed and goverment depts sent letters ect .if you read that eu report above they say there following the success of the american marine bill introduced in the early ninties and that brought permits, licences, and huge restrictions on sea anglers.so excuse me for not jumping up and down with excitment.its easy to dismiss someones point of view when you look at something you have been lobbying for and finally get but its whats after the survey im worried about. at what cost. having studied the uk marine bill its the exact same as what were getting now the only difference they attached the survey along with the bill