Joseph Cartwright
New member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
The reasons I have started this petition are :
1. This bill proposes an additional rod licence for sea anglers.
Course anglers should not have to pay for an extra licence on top of their existing course licence and visa versa.
This just smacks of taxation rather than stock preservation.
2. The proposals would apply to all recreational angling taking place on the shores of England and Wales and at sea, to angling activities within the seaward extent of British fishery limits adjacent to England and Wales. Everybody fishing from the shore or from a boat would be covered, irrespective of nationality.
This means that anyone fishing from the shore in Scotland would not need a recreational sea anglers rod licence to do so. This will cause problems and split angling even further.
3. This bill is proposing that Scotland and Wales will implement their own delivery arrangements for devolved matters.
This could result in 2 different sea licences for England and Wales possibly costing different amounts.
4. These proposals would cover recreational sea angling from the shore and from vessels. This would include anglers on their own boats or on charter vessels.
This would add extra cost to people who already pay to use a chartered boat.
5. The bill states that Fisheries managers need information about the numbers and location of fish caught by anglers to inform their decision-making on any conservation measures for stocks of interest to the sport. We may require licence holders to provide information on their activities from time to time. We will be able to request the provision of this information but could initially pursue this on a voluntary basis.
Why should we be forced to give details of our activities.
6. Some anglers are under the assumption that the money raised from a licence fee will go to the environment agency.
This is not necessarily the case. The bill proposes a new body called the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) ? which will work for all relevant UK Government departments, acting as an expert, efficient and impartial delivery agent.
The money from your licence fee could be distributed anywhere including car park improvements and new launch ways, which could encourage more pleasure boats, jet skis, etc.
7. DEFRA claim the purpose of introducing a licence fee is to pursue a framework for the development of Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) and to ensure powers are available to safeguard the sustainability of stocks.
The sustainability of fish stocks can be achieved far easier and quicker by reducing the excessive amount of trawling and dredging (which removes a lot of the food sources of the fish stocks that need managing) that occurs in our waters.
8. This will be a ridiculously difficult and expensive law to enforce.
To which people have said why does a law have to be enforced?
Answer - If there is no threat of a law being enforced then there will be a larger percentage of people who will not comply with that law.
If there are parts of Britain that are too expensive to visit by a bailiff (and there are many) then people will fish there to avoid paying for a licence.
9. The right to fish our shoreline without charge is about the ONLY right we have left that allows ANY man, woman or child of any class, colour or creed to do something without charge (except breathing). We have have been able to fish our coastal waters since mankind first walked this land and we have had this right in law for almost 800 years.
PLEASE let's not lose this right.
1. This bill proposes an additional rod licence for sea anglers.
Course anglers should not have to pay for an extra licence on top of their existing course licence and visa versa.
This just smacks of taxation rather than stock preservation.
2. The proposals would apply to all recreational angling taking place on the shores of England and Wales and at sea, to angling activities within the seaward extent of British fishery limits adjacent to England and Wales. Everybody fishing from the shore or from a boat would be covered, irrespective of nationality.
This means that anyone fishing from the shore in Scotland would not need a recreational sea anglers rod licence to do so. This will cause problems and split angling even further.
3. This bill is proposing that Scotland and Wales will implement their own delivery arrangements for devolved matters.
This could result in 2 different sea licences for England and Wales possibly costing different amounts.
4. These proposals would cover recreational sea angling from the shore and from vessels. This would include anglers on their own boats or on charter vessels.
This would add extra cost to people who already pay to use a chartered boat.
5. The bill states that Fisheries managers need information about the numbers and location of fish caught by anglers to inform their decision-making on any conservation measures for stocks of interest to the sport. We may require licence holders to provide information on their activities from time to time. We will be able to request the provision of this information but could initially pursue this on a voluntary basis.
Why should we be forced to give details of our activities.
6. Some anglers are under the assumption that the money raised from a licence fee will go to the environment agency.
This is not necessarily the case. The bill proposes a new body called the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) ? which will work for all relevant UK Government departments, acting as an expert, efficient and impartial delivery agent.
The money from your licence fee could be distributed anywhere including car park improvements and new launch ways, which could encourage more pleasure boats, jet skis, etc.
7. DEFRA claim the purpose of introducing a licence fee is to pursue a framework for the development of Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) and to ensure powers are available to safeguard the sustainability of stocks.
The sustainability of fish stocks can be achieved far easier and quicker by reducing the excessive amount of trawling and dredging (which removes a lot of the food sources of the fish stocks that need managing) that occurs in our waters.
8. This will be a ridiculously difficult and expensive law to enforce.
To which people have said why does a law have to be enforced?
Answer - If there is no threat of a law being enforced then there will be a larger percentage of people who will not comply with that law.
If there are parts of Britain that are too expensive to visit by a bailiff (and there are many) then people will fish there to avoid paying for a licence.
9. The right to fish our shoreline without charge is about the ONLY right we have left that allows ANY man, woman or child of any class, colour or creed to do something without charge (except breathing). We have have been able to fish our coastal waters since mankind first walked this land and we have had this right in law for almost 800 years.
PLEASE let's not lose this right.