|
Post by Hoppy on Feb 29, 2008 14:45:53 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Feb 29, 2008 15:59:50 GMT -1
I wonder how long it will be before the EA 'caps' the number of available rod licences?
It must seem a little odd to the coracle fishermen that rod anglers can fish with impunity and yet they've experienced a 33% reduction in their licence numbers. Although I'd struggle to accept or condone the taking of 12 fish in a night I do feel a twinge of sympathy for those pursuing this very traditional and idiosyncratic mode of fishing - but I'll get over it!
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Feb 29, 2008 16:54:25 GMT -1
Paul Dunstan should not be too upset about the Towy coraclemen after the news about poor Dai Rees losing his licence. EX-coracleman Rees (D6) was shown today 29th February on BBC Wales News, fishing with a net in the Towy at Carmarthen, during the close fishing season without a licence. He also repeated his intention to fish again on Saturday 1st March.
Dai Rees is claiming an ancient (English) family right to fish in perpituity.
In May 2007, this Federation invited all the Towy commercial netsmen to consider discussing selling their rights to hold licences. Dai Rees was the first of six coraclemen and six seine netsmen to express an interest. At an inaugural meeting, he quoted £30,000 in respect of his alleged long held licence - a figure he was obviously unable to substantiate in view of his more recent sea fishing activities off Cornwall.
Under a recent Net Limitation Order Review, because of dwindling fish stocks, and in the last 5 years only 7 out of 12 available coracle licences were taken out - the number was reduced from 12 to 8.
Come 2008, when 12 people applied, 4 failed to qualify and our Dai was one of them poor thing.
But we did buy out the 6 seine netsmen - and having done so - we do not take very kindly to the silly antics of Dai Rees.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Feb 29, 2008 19:14:17 GMT -1
As I said - I'll get over it.
My post did not exemplify 'sympathy' for the case of Dai Coracle - I have no sympathy for him or his ridiculous claim of an ancient 'right'. My family genealogy indicates DNA that links to a Viking heritage yet I claim no rights of rape and pillage.
Indeed, I view this character in the same light as any other who fishes illegally or who pillages our rivers' stocks at the expense of sustainability - whether that's with a rod or a net.
My point was - and still is - that we should not sit back with a smug 'Holier than thou' attitude just because we fish with a rod in our hand. We are as susceptible to criticism because of the 'antics' of a few as are the coracle fishermen who maintain their licences and ultimately, we may be subject to the same sanctions imposed by the EA.
Hope this clarifies my position?
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Mar 1, 2008 19:05:44 GMT -1
But what about other rivers ? Are you sitting comfortably? Unless some things change, as many as a dozen Welsh rivers could at best be looking at compulary c&r. Im sure you are right CFF, and it wont be the Tywi, Teifi, Dyfi or Conwy! So Which rivers will be effected??? Here are the popular Sea Trout Rivers in Wales - i cant think of any more sewin rivers! 1. Ogmore 2. Neath 3. Tawe 4. Loughor (CFF) 5. Taf 6. Cleddau 7. Aeron 8. Ystwyth 9. Rheidol 10. Dysynni 11. Mawddach 12 Glaslyn So who will support these clubs (bar No.4), how much representation have they got at FERAC and how safe will they be??? I have grave concerns Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by plotter on Mar 1, 2008 20:13:20 GMT -1
if he is fishing with no licence,( and obiously closed season) then he should be treated as a poacher, and anyone caught poaching is banned from having a licence, hence banned from fishing that was my understanding?? whether its family right or what. this is 2008 not 1888 how can someone say its family rights, what a load of bOllox..
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 2, 2008 10:07:35 GMT -1
I posted the first version of this last night - got it wrong - so took it down again.
I'm afraid Paul Dunstan hasn't quite got it right. What he describes as 'sanctions' are actually management tools employed to regulate net and rod fisheries such that they are hopefully sustainable. Each species in a river should meet its Conservation Limit. On the Towy, EAW's reduction of 12 to 8 coracles will make no difference at all to exploitation - unlike CFF's buyout of 6 of the seines - not to mention our promotion of 'catch & release' - fortunately still only voluntary on the Towy.
The netsmen don't do 'c&r' but will soon have to 'catch and tag' everything they sell - again unlike all anglers who won't be allowed to sell any fish in Wales.
But what about other rivers ? Are you sitting comfortably? Unless some things change, as many as a dozen Welsh rivers could at best be looking at compulary c&r.
I did try to upload some photos to demonstrate the possible efficacy of the coracle net with screen grabs from Friday's BBC Wales TV News depicting the said Dai Rees in his 1000 year old glass fibre coracle and his synthetic 12m x 1m double wall net ( Teifi coracle nets are 6m x 0.75m).
But that will have to wait until I've got time.
I'm afraid Hoppy -you've also got it a bit wrong!. I wonder what you have in mind by 'support for clubs'? . Support against what? Or whom?
The facts speak for themselves. The fisheries on some rivers are healthier than others - but not one is without problems.
And where a fishery has a problem - everyone all of us - not just the Agency - has a responsibility to do something about it.
Extract PAPER REF. FERACW/08/06
MEETING DATE: 24th January 2008
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY WALES FISHERIES, ECOLOGY & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PAPER BY: FISHERIES POLICY & PROCESS MANAGER
SUBJECT: MEASURES TO PROTECT SALMON & SEA TROUT AFTER 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Committees are requested to a. endorse the proposal to advertise a renewal of the current spring salmon byelaws and: b. support the proposed byelaws to prohibit the sale of rod caught salmon and sea trout, and carcass-tag fish caught by other means; c. support the principle of banning tailers in England; d. Note and comment on the recommended way forward for managing regulatory aspects of salmon and sea trout stocks (Part C) following the measures outlined above.
ANNEX 1 The probability of the principal salmon rivers in England and Wales failing their management target in 2011
(Based on data to 2006) Key:
Those in underlined red text have slipped down a predicted "risk" category from the previous year
Those in italic green text have moved up a predicted risk category from the previous year (i.e. are improving)
Those with an upward trend are marked with an * and those with a downward tend% SSSI rivers are marked + and those that are also SACs are marked $
Predicted to be “At Risk” in 2011 (95% < p) The "Decision Structure” normally requires zero exploitation for rivers in this category.
NE: Tees
NW: Wyre,
SW: Avon-Hants$, Stour, Piddle%, Axe, Dart$, Yealm$, Plym, Tavy$
Wales: Wye$ Taff & Ely%, Ogmore, E&W Cleddau, Rheidol, Dysinni, Glaslyn, Dwyfawr, Clwyd, Mawddach$
Predicted to be “Probably at Risk” in 2011 (50% < p < 95%) The “Decision Structure” asks you to identify the range of options to ensure sufficient spawning escapement to move to "Probably not at risk category" within five years – look to maintain socio-economic benefits where possible.
NW: Leven
Southern: Test*+, Itchen*$
SW: Frome+, Exe, Teign$, Taw$, Lynher, Torridge, Erme$[/color][/font] Wales: Taf Dee$, Dyfi,
Predicted to be “Probably not at risk” in 2011 (5% < p < 50%)
The “Decision Structure” asks you to determine if anything more needs to be done
NE: Yorkshire Esk*
NW: Ribble*, Duddon*, Cumbrian Esk, Irt, Ehen$, Eden*$, Border Esk
Midlands: Severn$
SW: Tamar*, Lyn
Wales: Usk$ , Seiont+, Ogwen, Teifi$, Tawe*, Tywi*, Nevern*[/font, Dwyryd
Predicted to be “Not at Risk” in 2011 (p < 5%) The “Decision Structure” asks you to determine if any changes (i.e. relaxation) in exploitation controls should be considered for any of these.
NE: Coquet*,Tyne*, Wear*
NW: Lune*, Kent*, Derwent$
SW: Fowey*, Camel*$, Devon Avon*
Wales: Conwy
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 2, 2008 14:59:54 GMT -1
The EA Papers relating to the previous posting can be read in full at www.carmarthenshire.org.uk/NEWS/newspage.htmScreen grabs from BBC NewsDai Rees expounding on coracle fishing Dai Rees with his ancient glass fibre coracles and synthetic net Setting the net Fishing - all before the first day of the season!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Mar 2, 2008 17:08:10 GMT -1
I'm afraid Paul Dunstan hasn't quite got it right. What he describes as 'sanctions' are actually management tools employed to regulate net and rod fisheries such that they are hopefully sustainable. I think you'll find that a definition of a 'sanction' is - "A consideration, influence or principle that dictates an ethical choice." Sanction as 'punishment' indicates a rather limited understanding of the word so I'm afraid you haven't got it 'quite right' - not wishing to adopt a condescending tone, of course.
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 3, 2008 9:53:13 GMT -1
Dictionary.com - SANCTIONS - 1. authoritative permission or approval, as for an action. 2. something that serves to support an action, condition, etc. 3. something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc. 4. Law. a. a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience. b. the penalty or reward. 5. International Law. action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations. –verb (used with object) 6. to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage. 7. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. 8. to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp. by way of discipline.
It is a borrowing from the Latin word sânctiô, meaning "a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable." In English, the word is first recorded in the mid-1500s in the meaning "law, decree," but not long after, in about 1635, it refers to "the penalty enacted to cause one to obey a law or decree." Thus from the beginning two fundamental notions of law were wrapped up in it: law as something that permits or approves and law that forbids by punishing. From the noun, a verb sanction was created in the 18th century meaning "to allow by law," but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean "to punish (for breaking a law)." English has a few other words that can refer to opposites, such as the verbs dust (meaning both "to remove dust from" and "to put dust on") and trim (meaning both "to cut something away" and "to add something as an ornament").
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Mar 3, 2008 10:31:51 GMT -1
.....but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean "to punish (for breaking a law)." My point exactly! The word 'sanction' is a contronym - perhaps you'd like to Google contronym and have some more practice at 'cut & paste'.
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 3, 2008 14:41:06 GMT -1
Paul - I'll do a deal with you. You learn something about fisheries and their management - and I'll try not to get too confused about my contronyms.
I wonder could you help me with sanctimonious?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Mar 3, 2008 16:44:12 GMT -1
Paul - I'll do a deal with you. You learn something about fisheries and their management - and I'll try not to get too confused about my contronyms. I wonder could you help me with sanctimonious? ;D ;D ;D I couldn't envisage engaging in something so challenging or high profile - I know my place!
|
|
|
Post by wnion on Mar 4, 2008 18:12:10 GMT -1
Thank you cff for posting the Extract Paper from the FERAC meeting regarding conservation limits. Can anyone explain how The EA currently work out the conservation limit of each river ? It says on their website "We're currently reviewing the way we calculate Conservation Limit compliance to take account of new research." Do they still go by catch returns and the number of fish released ?
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Mar 5, 2008 18:42:40 GMT -1
I'm afraid Hoppy -you've also got it a bit wrong!. I wonder what you have in mind by 'support for clubs'? . Support against what? Or whom? CFF, it would be very easy for the EAW to make these rivers compulsory C&R. I'm sure alot of the small clubs who struggle for membership and would fold on the back of such regulation - so what will they do? So my point was based on - support against the mandatory implementation of C&R and the effects - that this will have on them? As for support, i am not naive enough to think that not all people involved in fishing politics think of improving fishing across the UK, people look after themselves and have vested interests in their own rivers areas. So who would stand up for the smaller clubs and their rivers hundreds of miles away, when they have issues on their own rivers. You are fairly lucky in Carms that your rivers aren't great for kayaking - yes there are the day trippers and canoeists are a big issue - but look at North Wales - Lots of gr8 white water canoeing - yet look at the net - CFF has information on Canoes - but how about info from North Wales - and the impact that it will have on fishing. So look at these - the better known Sewin rivers in Wales bar the big 4! Predicted to be “At Risk” in 2011 (95% < p)The "Decision Structure” normally requires zero exploitation for rivers in this category. Wales: Wye$ Taff & Ely%, Ogmore, E&W Cleddau, Rheidol, Dysinni, Glaslyn, Dwyfawr, Clwyd, Mawddach$ It looks like there will only be a few rivers left to fish in Wales if Rivers are closed as has happened in Ireland. So these discussions, whilst necessary - may have come too late for some of the rivers not reaching/predicting to reach their conservations limits. Perhaps i am wrong - but these are genuine thoughts. Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by apprentice2 on Mar 6, 2008 8:45:17 GMT -1
CFF,
I have tried the EAWales website but failed to locate the document FERACW/08/06. I particularly want to find out how the EA estimates - fish stocks and calculates what are expotable levels. Can you direct me to the source paper please??
Brian M
|
|
|
Post by wnion on Mar 6, 2008 9:31:51 GMT -1
Hoppy, I think that the subject of possible compulsory catch and release on some Welsh and possibly English rivers should have its own thread and be pinned at the top of every page. It is to important to be hidden under another title (coracles in West Wales) as it might not be read by members who have no interest in that subject.
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 6, 2008 10:03:38 GMT -1
1. As I indicated previously, the information requested by Apprentic2 is on that font of knowledge www.carmarthenshire.org.uk/NEWS/newspage.htmYou should note that it is only a discussion paper but carries an important message. 2. Hoppy Have you never heard of WSTAA? S&TA? FWA? NAFAC? They welcome the active support of clubs and individuals - and will act on your behalf. Do you want an introduction? Just say the word!.
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Mar 6, 2008 13:52:08 GMT -1
lots of different groups - of course i am aware of them - perhaps the fragmentation is an issue 'too many cooks...'
It will be interesting to see how this pans out - especially if rivers are closed to all - anglers and commercial interests alike.
Hoppy
Ps - To be fair i dont want an introduction - but perhaps you could put some links up so that other members can see what is available.
|
|
cff
Parr
Posts: 49
|
Post by cff on Mar 6, 2008 14:16:50 GMT -1
As indicated above - its all there if you take the trouble to look.... www.carmarthenshire.org.uk/federation.htmBut a moment ago you were complaining at the lack of representation....- now there's too many !. But help is hand. S&TA, ACA, NAFAC etc etc are now all talking about combining - only in England of course - we in Wales are not included. Here in Wales we have the FWA which is a sort of gag gle of game, coarse and sea interests - and is said to be THE angling governing body in Wales - so it should be - it was set up by, and is funded by WAG and EAW with seats on its Committee. You couldn't get nearer to the action than that. Could you?
|
|