Artical 47: A Sensible Reply

[MulletFly]

Spot on osean. I've paid for my fresh water licence for the past five years and not once seen or been approached by an EA inspector. I think that a similar situation would apply to sea fishing.

[squiresoak]

[seaferret]

Hi All,
Read all the replies to this and the comments are great,but on my original e-maqil to this lot of mep jokers was this,' would they be prepared to accept the fact that if Article 47 was passed they could be voted out of their nice jobs in Brussels,and replaced by UKIPS or some party of the same political view'
suffice to say they ALL ignored that part.
My questions to you all is this,
At the next MEP Elections would you vote for a UKIPS member or would you put your political view first and trust the mainstream parties.
And at the next General Election would you be prepared to lobby your preferred parties loud enough for a vote on continued membership of this EU .
I ask those two questions because it may be the only way to stop this sort of interferance from continuing.
lokk forward to the awnsers
c yall
seaferret

[AH]

[mudlark]

If anybody had bothered to read the inital proposal from the EU they would already have known their intention with this issue was only in repect of "vessells over 10 metres" and nothing in the original document was directed at shore anglers at all ..... all the "huff and puff" was stirred up originally by a group of individuals on another forum ..... and a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon simply because they believed what they were told rather than reading the paperwork themselves.

I've seen posts on this forum claiming that they intended to ban "the right to roam", that there would be an end to catch and release competitions, that you would need a sea rod licence and even that you would need to register every fish you caught ..... absolute cobblers, nothing in the EU proposal says anything of the kind!!!! Its just sensationalist scaremongering quite frankly and I personally think a lot of it has been stirred up by the commercial sector, because if the proposals go through, there is a lot contained within them that will mean tighter controls on the commercial sector and ultimately less fish for them.

Did anybody read them through properly? A larger part of them intend to put tighter controls on the commercial sector, ensure that "black markets" for fish are reduce and it even proposes digital tracking of all licenced craft to ensure that illegal landings can be traced and prosecuted - where I come from thats good for anglers surely?

Quite frankly its all been said before ......

http://www.sea-fishing.org/ftopict-15670.html

[rabbi2]

Im sorry to be out of step with the majority but anything that will add to the conservation of fish stocks for future generations Ill support. providing that any measures taken are not just a way of raising revenue and that any proposals are truely designed with conservation in mind.
Cheers keith

[mudlark]

Im sorry to be out of step with the majority but anything that will add to the conservation of fish stocks for future generations Ill support. providing that any measures taken are not just a way of raising revenue and that any proposals are truely designed with conservation in mind.
Cheers keith

I don't think you are out of step with the majority Rabbi .... it might seem that a lot are up in arms about Artical 47 but a great deal more are silent on the subject.

I'm no fan of the EU or their fisheries policy but I should imagine getting any improvements through is an impossible job, especially when every interested party (and I include anglers here as well) want everybody else to accept change in the name of conservation but are not prepared to accept any change themselves. Don't know if you saw the press release from the EU ..... apparently they were a bit baffled by all the fuss as the proposal suggests very little that will directly effect shore anglers ...... apparently eccles is the only person who catches anything worth recording