Bring it On

[sharpshooter]

Ive spoke to Nigel about this before and he has often said that if the boats and the licenses still exist they can easily be put back in use at anytime.

 

As always statistics can be put to any use and perhaps the stats do show little decrease in the existance of boats but perhaps a more realistic picture could be found by looking at fish landings and speeking to the individual skippers of these boats who will tell you they are being squeezed out slowly but surely.

 

 

Our beloved ministry refur to it as "leytant effort" (sp?)

Hence proposals to cap U10m liciences in some shape or form. Many U10m liciences are not in use, and they fear that these liciences will re-activate and draw fish from the U10 pool.

 

The small decrease of vessels in the stats is more than likely accounted for by sinkings, scrapping, and vessels leaving the industry to become private plesure vessels

 

I have just recently become a commercial licience holder myself, and was advised to be very selective in the licience that i bought. I had to find a suitable licience (with sufficient tonnage and kilowatts) with shellfish entitlement, and one that had "pressure stock track record between 2005 and 2007.

It is one of several proposals that any boats without pressure stock track record between these dates will not be entitled to draw their current full share from the U10m pool.

[wurzel]

Before any of the cuddle crew shoot me down in flames I'm not trying to be confrontational or take any side, but;

 

Fishing mortality is coming down on pretty much most of the main commercial stocks, and fishing mortality is predominantly linked to fishing effort, so it is untrue to say that efforts to lobby for a reduction in fishing effort/mortality have failed, if that was the case stocks would continue to decline, and with one or two notable exceptions, there is more evidence to show an increase and gradual stabilisation of these stocks than there is for a decline. What is open to speculation is who's lobbying efforts brought around the acknowledgement by the European Commission that drastic and emergency measures were required to bring down fishing mortality (effort), not that it matters to most people, its the end result that counts.

 

The problem is that we are still very much in the early days of recovery; it takes a lot longer to recover fish stocks than it does to ruin them. Despite all the doom and gloom merchants, or possibly in spite of the doom and gloom merchants the UK fishing industry is pretty resilient. The claims that DEFRA & SFC’s etc are managing the inshore fleet out of existence is not supported from a historical perspective, in fact the decline of the English, Welsh and Irish inshore fleets since 2001 (in terms of the number of fishing vessels) equates to approximately 9.5% over an 8 year period which works out at almost 1.2% per year. In 2001 there were 3,371 under 10m vessels in the English, Welsh & Irish inshore fleets, in July 2008 those fleets comprise 3,059 under 10m vessels, that’s a reduction of 312 vessels (9.5%) over 8 years. If a comparison is made to July 2007, then there were 3,068 registered under 10m fishing vessels, which during a period when quotas have began to bite, is a decline of 9 vessels.

 

Looking specifically at the north and east coast, in 2001 there were 42 under 10m boats working out of Whitby,6 out of Staithes, 23 out of Scarborough, 9 out of Flamborough and 15 out of Bridlington. In 2008, there are 32 under 10m boats working out of Whitby (c. 25% decrease), 7 out of Staithes (c. 15% increase), 37 out of Scarborough (c. 60% increase), 9 out of Flamborough (status quo) and 25 out of Bridlington (c. 40% increase). As Whitby bucks the trend it could be that it’s not specifically related to fishing or fisheries management that’s responsible for the decline of the under 10’s, most probably as a result of social change. However, there is another consideration to take and this is tied up with a point made by a couple of posters, that being in order land fish onto the key/market, the vessel/person doing so must have held (in 2001) a pressure stock licence. From my experience, a number of charter vessels in Whitby did indeed hold such entitlements and they were classified and recorded as commercial fishing boats, this also applied to a number of vessels in Bridlington. I’m not sure when, but I think that this entitlement was removed during the early days of the cod recovery management plan, I know the same skippers in Brid cannot land cod anymore, but they can land non pressure stock species (Bass, Pollock etc.). It is therefore possible that there has been no significant decline in the inshore fleet at Whitby, just a removal from the vessel list of charter vessels who no longer have an entitlement; this is particularly relevant at Whitby when you consider how large the charter fleet used to be.

 

Consequently, the angling charter vessels are not acting illegally, as they have as much right to land certain species of fish as any other commercial fisherman with a category B (prawns) or C licence (non pressure stock), I have to say I’m not 100% certain on the licensing situation as it can be quite complex, but hopefully Wurzel can fill in any gaps or put right any misinterpretations, all I do know is that all or most under 10’s have a Cat A licence, many with shellfish entitlement. The problem lies with some sectors not being able to draw a distinction, between what’s legal and what’s not, and more often than not are too concerned with what someone else is doing rather than concentrating on what they are doing.

 

The picture with the over 10m and predominantly offshore sector is different, over the same time scale (2001 – 2008) there has been a 25% reduction in the number of fishing vessels active in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. On a local level this translates to a reduction of about 40% at Whitby and 20% at Bridlington, although there is a slight increase recorded at Scarborough (8%). So all in all, there is no evidence of the government, MFA and or the Sea Fisheries Committees targeting the inshore fishing fleets and trying to bring about the demise of this sector. There is evidence of responsible management and attempts to ensure sustainability of our inshore fisheries, now I can see where that may be considered to be a bad thing if your having the amount of fish you can catch being cut or restricted, and I sympathise, but sustainable fisheries are not achieved by allowing free for alls, low fish stocks have to be managed, not just for fishermen but for other stakeholders (anglers) but probably more importantly, for the benefit of the environment and ecosystem.

 

Hello Nigel

 

How the hell are you long time no hear, are you still attending meetings where the most important item on the agenda is arranging the next meeting?

 

Any way as usual I feel I need to correct you on a few points with in your post.

 

You are correct the number of under ten boats still in existence has not decreased, but the number that are fishing has also a lot have either changed to shell fish or where they fished for pressure stock or fin fish part of the year now fish all year for shell fish, their cards are marked it won't be long before some form of management will thin them out.

As for the rest of the under 10's the time scale you quote 2001 to 1008 is not correct, they only really started on the under 10's since the buyers and sellers came in force 2 years ago up until then things were not so bad for a under ten boat.

Things have certainly changed now with a much reduced quotas and higher running cost many boats are just hanging on hoping it will get better, if it doesn't then in a couple more years they will go where they will go I'm not sure because the boats will be hard to sell.

 

You say Quote '' but sustainable fisheries are not achieved by allowing free for alls,''

 

The shell fish fleet seem to have done alright and despite a free for all stocks seem to appear good.

 

You also say Quote ''low fish stocks have to be managed,''

 

I'm sure I've asked you this before , What low fish stocks?

[thedogs]

Stocks do seem to be on the mend with cod, bass, hounds, tope and thornbacks avalible to anglers. This is a good thing and they need to be looked after.

Edited August 9, 2008 by thedogs

[thedogs]

Just how big a problem is unlicensed netting or hobby netting in reality Sam ? I realise there are no figures on this but do you think if the hobby netters weren't there your bass fishing and bass stocks would significantly improve ? I am a bit oblivious to this as living around a Salmon River very few people get away with beach netting other than those with licences and the odd person who places nets on the scars south of Saltwick.

 

 

Hi Glenn.

 

Well as you say there are no figures on this. However most weekends in the summer there can be several un licensed boats working the black water. Some pals of mine counted ten boats all working a few hundreds yards of gill nets a few weekends ago, they found this quite shocking. I explained that its been going on for ever! Now whether these guys are selling their catches or not I couldn’t tell you. But I doubt they all do it for love. There are several privately owned large angling boats that also sell their catches. I used to buy bass from a local commercial and then sell them to local restaurants; I had to stop as I was being under cut by anglers selling at £2.50 per pound. I only know about my local rivers but after talking with others in the know it appears its happening everywhere.

[wurzel]

Stocks do seem to be on the mend with cod, bass, hounds, tope and thornbacks avalible to anglers. This is a good thing and they need to be looked after.

 

So do I.

[barry luxton]

Ohhhhhhhhhh dammit, finger slipped on the keyboard, already posted this seaside picture previously.

 

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s126/ba...nshorefleet.jpg

 

Following on from the beach fishing trawler photo, here is the latest from a forward thinking local authority in regards to health and safty, you could not make this up. The second link is a 'blow' up of the first.

 

http://www.fishingdartmouth.co.uk/RNLI%20N...20Sh%20JPEG.jpg

 

http://www.fishingdartmouth.co.uk/Beware%2...20Sh%20JPEG.jpg

Edited August 10, 2008 by barry luxton

[thedogs]

Seems to me that RSA bodies have failed. They have been so dam busy slating the commercial fishing industry that the thought of lobby for the fishery to be properly policed has just slipped by.

 

They have aimed at the un achievable and in doing so wasted time and money. But worst of all they have let down the very people they are meant to represent.

 

I’m not pretending over fishing doesn’t exist of course it does, but it’s the inshore fishery that anglers are interested it, and if policed properly effort would be cut, and anglers would catch more fish.

 

If the RSA lobbyists had aimed the campaign at better policing then these decent year classes of bass that we are seeing hear in the Thames estuary would have had a little more protection. As it is every Tom Dick and Harry who owns something that floats is out for their share and they aint all for personal consumption. Trouble is most of the lobbyists don’t know their arses from there elbows when it comes to commercial fishing and its practices, so started the campaign with slogans like WALLS OF DEATH, now they are spouting off about some bass fishermen using 35k of nets. Until they get their facts right and then aim their fire in the correct direction I’m afraid they are just going to continue to make themselves look silly to the outside world.

[Jaffa]

There are clearly conflicting accounts about the extent to which anglers/unlicensed charters do or do not sell on their catches down south and that seems to be the thing generating calls for legislation to combat this "problem".

 

This has never as far as i'm aware at least, ever been a problem up here (NE Scotland), in fact just the reverse in that things like the buyers and sellers legislation has only driven smaller businesses to the wall and increased the sense in "going big". We now apparently (newspaper stories) have the craziness of small firms in Mallaig (a main west coast landing port) who used to drag a box of fish from quay to restaurant, now having to send that fish south and the restaurant then buying from billingsgate and having it trucked back north!

 

That would be fine if it served to protect Mallaigs fish stocks but given i have never heard anyone say their is a problem with unlicenced landings there then it gets hard to understand what its about?

 

Chris

[barry luxton]

There are clearly conflicting accounts about the extent to which anglers/unlicensed charters do or do not sell on their catches down south and that seems to be the thing generating calls for legislation to combat this "problem".

 

 

 

Chris

 

There is already legislation in place to combat the 'unlicenced angling boats' selling their catches upto 50k i believe, so i certainly wouldn't like to be on the wrong side of that. Until there is evidence to back the illegal selling it can only be construde as hearsay, pub talk and gossip, who in their right minds wants legislation based on that.

 

I find it hard to believe that guys are 'shocked' in seeing ten boats netting without licences and they are not checked, in particular where it is happening on a regular basis. Either the sfc are stupid and these 'anglers' are very clever, unlike like the illegal commercial guys who seem to get caught even on a regular basis, one from devon has ten convictions, reported last year. Don't see any warnings or convictions, so again they are either very clever, or it ain't happening.

 

These 'guys' who are in the know, can they enlighten us to this widespead illegal activity. Proof please.

[Steve Coppolo]

Until there is evidence to back the illegal selling it can only be construde as hearsay, pub talk and gossip, who in their right minds wants legislation based on that.

 

Looking at some of the press releases put out recently.............................