OJ. Then calling it a day.

Please only post topics related to fishing the Thames Estuary in this forum only.
flattiefanatic
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:04 am

Post by flattiefanatic » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:18 pm

Well to cut my nose of to spite my face if a licence does come in i wont be sea fishing anymore ;)



actionsanta
Occasional
Occasional
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Southend On Sea

Post by actionsanta » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:38 pm

Iknowagoodplaice wrote:We have a choice flattie: we can carry on fishing and hope for the best; or we can do try and do something about the threats to our fishing, even if only in a small way.

There is now one organisation that will do the politics for us, but they cannot do it on fresh air. We can be cynical and presume the Angling Trust will have no effect at all; or we can let others pay; or we can contribute.

It is easy to let others do the work and pay the money, but if all anglers took that view (and many do, as you suggest) absolutely nothing would improve for us. We can either stand up and fight, or shrug our shoulders on the shore and watch increasingly motionless rod tops.

Ironically your stance does make a good case for a compulsory licence. ;)
Well put......I can only assume that we are in the minority, dur to the fact that you are the only person to speak up in the "for" side...

It's not a case of them and us(for and against the license).....We should all stand together, make our sport better, (maybe introducing weekend clubs for youngsters, which is one if been toying with for a while now!)

macer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Romford

Post by macer » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:10 pm

Good thread here guys...... I see there are pros and cons for both sides here.

Nice to see we can have a friendly debate without the need for moderation lol

Cheers macer :D

dontcatchmuch

Post by dontcatchmuch » Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:26 pm

macer wrote:Good thread here guys...... I see there are pros and cons for both sides here.

Nice to see we can have a friendly debate without the need for moderation lol

Cheers macer :D

hence my resent theads post i think it great to be able to do this
steve

macer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Romford

Post by macer » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:59 pm

dontcatchmuch wrote:
macer wrote:Good thread here guys...... I see there are pros and cons for both sides here.

Nice to see we can have a friendly debate without the need for moderation lol

Cheers macer :D

hence my resent theads post i think it great to be able to do this
steve
Copycat......I posted first lol :P

mentalextra
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:00 am
Location: East London/Essex

Post by mentalextra » Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:57 pm

Fascinating subject. All the "TV Chefs" seem to be championing fish eating now. But for ordinary people its a luxury item. We are supposed to be broadening our horizons where species are concerned. Heston was on the tv trying to sell "Wolf fish" and chips to the seaside crowd. It was supposed to taste good and why not, it was good enough for the Vikings and they new a bit about fish :D . He made a point of showing the customers how ugly it was but who cares, a cod is hardly a beauty either.

But, who would gain from this new cheap fish. Not the commercial fisherman. Back to busting a gut for days in a boat, bringing back tonnes of fish worth peanuts. Not the Wholesalers who have to justify haulage from ports to market. Not the restaurants and chip shops with high prices. Only the consumer needs and wants cheap fish so dont hold your breath!

A fish and chip supper knocks a big hole in a ten pound note, wherease the previous generation bought it as a cheap meal on friday until dad came home with the housekeeping. Sceptics like me think that it is in the industries interest to maintain artificially high fish prices. We are told cod stocks are low but everyone else in the EU seems to be able to catch them.

I think a licence for sea fishing is inevitable, in a world where there is a charge for anything and everything. I cant see that it will make the sport any more enjoyable but may make some anglers feel better.
Lets be honest, at the moment there are too many people making too much money out of an artificially inflated fish price, and many things will have to change before government start taking it seriously enough.

Just my opinion, you can take or leave it #:-S

Iknowagoodplaice
Regular
Regular
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Surrey

Post by Iknowagoodplaice » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:06 pm

I believe the wolf fish exist in the deeper northern seas. They are now being fished because of the depletion of the traditional commercial species. I think there is no doubt about the impact on cod and other fish; we can see that from our lack of catches alone, never mind the science surveys. As things are, the wolf fish will go the way of the cod if the Blumenthals of this world persuade us to eat them.

I don't think there is any artificial support to fish prices - there are no commercial fishing cartels that I'm aware of. Prices are high simply because fish are fewer these days (and demand higher - more people and more fish-eating tv chefs). This also means that catching as many as possible is now quite lucrative.

For me there is something decadent about the tv chef - the art of gluttony, especially in Blumenthal's case. Note how they are trying to get us to eat more fish (albeit not cod, plaice, etc), when the problem is we consume to many. Yes, making the public aware of low fish stocks is good, but I suspect the motivation of the chefs, who want to stay on tv and sell books, in between the cooking.

In the end most people don't give two hoots about sea fish stocks. Those who care most are us, but we have little say in the matter, which at present is largely our own choice. If we do have to pay for a licence, at least that will give us an economic stake, and the economy is what it's all about for today's politicians, sadly.

actionsanta
Occasional
Occasional
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Southend On Sea

Post by actionsanta » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:54 pm

Iknowagoodplaice wrote:I believe the wolf fish exist in the deeper northern seas. They are now being fished because of the depletion of the traditional commercial species. I think there is no doubt about the impact on cod and other fish; we can see that from our lack of catches alone, never mind the science surveys. As things are, the wolf fish will go the way of the cod if the Blumenthals of this world persuade us to eat them.

I don't think there is any artificial support to fish prices - there are no commercial fishing cartels that I'm aware of. Prices are high simply because fish are fewer these days (and demand higher - more people and more fish-eating tv chefs). This also means that catching as many as possible is now quite lucrative.

For me there is something decadent about the tv chef - the art of gluttony, especially in Blumenthal's case. Note how they are trying to get us to eat more fish (albeit not cod, plaice, etc), when the problem is we consume to many. Yes, making the public aware of low fish stocks is good, but I suspect the motivation of the chefs, who want to stay on tv and sell books, in between the cooking.

In the end most people don't give two hoots about sea fish stocks. Those who care most are us, but we have little say in the matter, which at present is largely our own choice. If we do have to pay for a licence, at least that will give us an economic stake, and the economy is what it's all about for today's politicians, sadly.
Well said, I think this matter will not go away, it needs to be said, for and against. I would love to have all those who have commented on this to the pub. Great drinking debate!

flattiefanatic
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:04 am

Post by flattiefanatic » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:06 pm

actionsanta wrote:I would love to have all those who have commented on this to the pub. Great drinking debate!
If your buying im there :))

actionsanta
Occasional
Occasional
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Southend On Sea

Post by actionsanta » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:22 pm

flattiefanatic wrote:
actionsanta wrote:I would love to have all those who have commented on this to the pub. Great drinking debate!
If your buying im there :))
Cheap Skate...(geddit) :D :D :D :D

mentalextra
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:00 am
Location: East London/Essex

Post by mentalextra » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:44 am

Iknowagoodplaice wrote:I believe the wolf fish exist in the deeper northern seas. They are now being fished because of the depletion of the traditional commercial species. I think there is no doubt about the impact on cod and other fish; we can see that from our lack of catches alone, never mind the science surveys. As things are, the wolf fish will go the way of the cod if the Blumenthals of this world persuade us to eat them.

I don't think there is any artificial support to fish prices - there are no commercial fishing cartels that I'm aware of. Prices are high simply because fish are fewer these days (and demand higher - more people and more fish-eating tv chefs). This also means that catching as many as possible is now quite lucrative.

For me there is something decadent about the tv chef - the art of gluttony, especially in Blumenthal's case. Note how they are trying to get us to eat more fish (albeit not cod, plaice, etc), when the problem is we consume to many. Yes, making the public aware of low fish stocks is good, but I suspect the motivation of the chefs, who want to stay on tv and sell books, in between the cooking.

In the end most people don't give two hoots about sea fish stocks. Those who care most are us, but we have little say in the matter, which at present is largely our own choice. If we do have to pay for a licence, at least that will give us an economic stake, and the economy is what it's all about for today's politicians, sadly.
Fair enough but I dont think that a few hundred fisherman buying a licence will change the world view to conservation. We have had quite enough of a "charge for that" culture that has developed. The government will be behind licences for all the good reasons you may have found. But, they will do nothing and take our money! Look what a joke recycling has become, just another excuse to fine you for making a mistake. All stick and no carrot for the consumer.

How many years have the commercial fisherman been operating under the quota system. Still no improvement in fish stocks, because the less we fish the more everyone else does!

The problem is that a "new breed" of fisherman has entered the sport, they actually expect to catch fish! :D

flattiefanatic
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:04 am

Post by flattiefanatic » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:06 am

mentalextra wrote: Fair enough but I dont think that a few hundred fisherman buying a licence will change the world view to conservation. We have had quite enough of a "charge for that" culture that has developed. The government will be behind licences for all the good reasons you may have found. But, they will do nothing and take our money! Look what a joke recycling has become, just another excuse to fine you for making a mistake. All stick and no carrot for the consumer.

How many years have the commercial fisherman been operating under the quota system. Still no improvement in fish stocks, because the less we fish the more everyone else does!

The problem is that a "new breed" of fisherman has entered the sport, they actually expect to catch fish! :D
This :D

Iknowagoodplaice
Regular
Regular
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Surrey

Post by Iknowagoodplaice » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:23 am

mentalextra

Don't we number in the ten thousands (hundred thousands?), not hundreds?

A licence won't change the view of the world, but it means we can demand something for the money - namely fish in the seas; and maybe closer monitoring of the shore to prevent dubious anglers taking undersize fish and scattering their rubbish.

Apparently some fish stocks have improved a little, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell. Anyway, what would you propose in place of quotas?

Nothing's for free, not even sea fishing. We pay plenty for tackle and bait. I don't understand why people object to a few quid to improve our lot. Yes, we should expect something if we pay up, and yes, govts can be hopeless at times, or so it seems.

So what should we do? Insist on our right to fish while complaining about the Govt, EU, trawlers, sewage outfalls and putting up with more and more blanks. Or maybe get organised, pay our modest dues, and demand that humanity stops wrecking our marine environment, if only around our coasts.

mentalextra
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:00 am
Location: East London/Essex

Post by mentalextra » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:55 pm

Having a licence wont allow us to "demand" anything! The government and commerce will do exactly as it likes no matter how many "thousands :-/ " of us buy licences! Look what you pay for a driving licence; can you demand anything, no!

I have heard all the "unite and gain power" rhetoric for years, but really. If every sea angler stopped, would that make a jot of difference in the big picture? It has always been hard to catch fish on rod and line, and due to commercial overfishing it has become even harder. What sort of success have the commercial fisherman had, lobbying government. I bet their licences are more expensive than a few quid.

The question to ask is whether it is our fight and what we expect to gain. We could make the ultimate sacrifice and stop fishing completely? Or, we could throw in with the commercial fisherman, but as we know they are competition and as much as we may think of them as brothers, they would be happy to see us stopped from our sport.

Only for the grace of god go we! :-S

MickMull
Member
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Southend on Sea

Post by MickMull » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:30 pm

I reckon enforcing licenses is a non starter ( thank God in my opinion) I believe it states in the magna carta that we all have a right to catch fish for our dinner, which is why plenty of people don't buy bait digging licenses as it is a possible defence that this is part of the fish catching process :)

Post Reply