New EU plans for seafish catches

[Shooter08 0]

Naa Lol I Always Do It

[harrycatcat 31]

Recreational Fisheries‏

From: SMITH Alyn (alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu)

Sent: 20 January 2009 17:46:15

To: (harrycatcat1@********.co.uk)

 

Our Ref: Constit/FISH

 

Thank you for getting in touch regarding EU fisheries polcy. Under an informal arrangement to avoid duplication my SNP colleague Ian Hudghton leads for the SNP on fisheries, as he sits on the Fisheries Committee. Given that you have already been in touch with him I am sure he will be in touch soon if he has not already, and speaks for both of us.

 

Yours aye

 

Alyn Smith MEP

 

 

This a response that I got when I emailed my displeasure at the proposals. Has anyone else emailed ??? If so have you had a reply.

[harrycatcat 31]

From: ATTWOOLL Elspeth (elspeth.attwooll@europarl.europa.eu)

Sent: 22 January 2009 11:58:49

To: ************ (harrycatcat1@**************.co.uk)

 

Thank you for your correspondence about Article 47 of the Control Regulation. I share your concerns over this.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the Article is not clearly drafted, but as far as I can understand it the European Commission intends it to apply only where there is a multi-annual (recovery) plan, for stocks outside safe biological limits, such as with cod and blue fin tuna and where the fishing is done from onboard a vessel. This means that it would not affect most recreational sea fisheries, including any done from onshore, or angling on inland waters.

 

 

 

As I understand it, the Commission's concern is with the substantial amounts that are caught by some recreational fisheries in relation to the species covered by the multi annual recovery plans. For example, it is estimated that in Italy (2007), 800 tonnes of blue fin tuna were caught by recreational fishers whilst the national quota is around 4,300 tonnes. On my reading, too, the Article is intended to prevent commercial fishing under the guise of recreational fishing.

 

 

 

That said, Article 47 sets a precedent of which we should be very wary. Please be assured that this point has already been raised with some force in the course of our deliberations in the Fisheries Committee. It seems clear that there will be amendments from committee members asking for the Article to be deleted from the proposal or, failing that, amended very substantially indeed.

 

 

 

I should add, though, that under the current procedures, the Parliament can only give an opinion and the final decision is taken by the Council of Fisheries Ministers. So, it would be useful, too, for you to make the government directly aware of your views on the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

Elspeth Attwooll MEP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: *********[mailto:harrycatcat1@************.co.uk]

Sent: Tue 1/20/2009 6:46 PM

To: david@martinmep.com; HUDGHTON Ian; ATTWOOLL Elspeth; PURVIS John; SMITH Alyn; STEVENSON Struan; cstihlermep@btconnect.com

Subject: Article 47

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

 

I am opposed to article 47 of the EU common fisheries policy control regulationss which links recreational fisheries to commercial catches.

 

This will seriously impede on the pleasure of thousands of people who are no threat to fishing stocks because it is the pleasure of being there not the amount caught.

 

I would be pleased if you could oppose this part.

 

Regards

[sminky 0]

Hang on, was that a sensible and well thought out reply from an MEP? I expect I read it wrong.

 

sminky

[harrycatcat 31]

RE: Article 47‏

From: PURVIS John (john.purvis@europarl.europa.eu)

Sent: 22 January 2009 16:33:34

To: ********** (harrycatcat1@***********.co.uk)

 

Dear Mr Harry Catcat

 

 

 

Thank you for your email regarding article 47. I share your concern.

 

 

 

As you are already aware, a Council Regulation on control systems for compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy will be discussed in the Fisheries Committee this month. Like my colleague, Mr Struan Stevenson, who is a member of the Fisheries committee, I fully support measures which aim to protect and conserve our depleting fish stocks. However, the Conservative delegation here at the European Parliament is concerned that Article 47 of the Regulation, which will bring recreational fisheries under the direct control of the Common Fisheries Policy, is a step too far.

 

 

 

If adopted, article 47 would require recreational anglers throughout the EU to apply for special licences and log and register their catches, where they are fishing for species covered by a multi-annual recovery plan. Member States would have to allocate a quota for recreational anglers and this would be deducted from their national quota. Recreational anglers would also be prohibited from selling any fish they catch.

 

 

 

As European lawmakers we must aim for balance in all our policies. Article 47 is not about balance, it is about bureaucracy and the surveillance state. Let me assure you that we will be voting against this article.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Purvis

 

Member of the European Parliament for Scotland

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ********[mailto:harrycatcat1@***********co.uk]

Sent: 20 January 2009 18:46

To: david@martinmep.com; HUDGHTON Ian; ATTWOOLL Elspeth; PURVIS John; SMITH Alyn; STEVENSON Struan; cstihlermep@btconnect.com

Subject: Article 47

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

 

I am opposed to article 47 of the EU common fisheries policy control regulationss which links recreational fisheries to commercial catches.

 

This will seriously impede on the pleasure of thousands of people who are no threat to fishing stocks because it is the pleasure of being there not the amount caught.

 

I would be pleased if you could oppose this part.

 

Regards

 

 

 

This guy sounds OK as he is to oppose the article 47

[harrycatcat 31]

Dear Harry,

 

 

Thanks for your email. I agree with you entirely about Article 47 of the Council Regulation on control systems for compliance with the CFP which is currently being discussed in the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament in January. While I and my Conservative colleagues support moves to ensure vigorous compliance with measures which seek to protect and conserve fish stocks, we are deeply concerned at the proposal contained in Article 47 of the Regulation, which will effectively bring recreational fisheries under the direct control of the CFP.

 

 

 

The Proposal would require millions of recreational anglers throughout the EU to apply for special licences and log and register their catches, where they are fishing for species covered by a multi-annual recovery plan. Member States would have to allocate a quota for recreational anglers and this would be deducted from their national quota. Recreational anglers would be prohibited from selling any fish they catch.

 

 

 

Together with my Conservative MEP, we believe these proposals are draconian and unworkable and would impose a level of bureaucratic interference into sport fishing that would have a disastrous impact on the tourist sector, without providing any meaningful benefits to conservation. We will seek to remove recreational fisheries from the context of the proposed regulation.

 

 

 

I hope this reassures you.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

Struan

 

 

 

Struan STEVENSON MEP

 

Vice President of the EPP-ED Group

 

Conservative Member for Scotland

 

European Parliament

Rue Wiertz 60

1047 Brussels

 

Tel: 0032 2 284 5710

Fax: 0032 2 284 9710

 

E-mail: struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu

 

www.struanstevenson.com