Guernsey Bass Management Meeting

[Jaffa]

1. the BMP is intended to favour anglers

 

This is exactly what the BMP was always intended to achieve. Not least to redress the historical imbalance and support the SU Report recommendations for bass.

 

2. and is nothing to do with conservation but is about financial benefits for the Govt.

 

It is all about conservation as it is intended that there will be more bigger female fish which not only provides a safety buffer for poor spawning years, but also realises best value from the species via RSA expenditure - a big chunk of which will go to the UK government

 

3. Regardless of what the anglers say, stocks are increasing and we have a sustainable fishery in the UK.

 

Incorrect. We have a sustainable commercial recruitment fishery not a sustainable recreational fishery. The number of bigger bass are also decreasing in all forms of the catching sector – this cannot possibly be termed sustainable.

 

4. the larger number of smaller fish caught by anglers is due to their success, they are more voracious than larger fish and so take your bait/fly first.

 

I agree with this but the number of schoolies far and away out number anything over 5lbs, let alone the needle in the haystack 10lb fish. BASS would like the opportunity for anglers to encounter bigger fish more often hence the 45 mls.

 

5. no other stakeholders have been invited to contribute to the BMP

 

The BMP was the submission from BASS to the UK Government in response to the SU Report, and is also posted for all to see on their web site. I do not recall ever seeing any commercial submissions which were ever circulated to RSA organisations, let alone a specific response to the BMP.

 

6. The renewal of the irish ban was political not conservation based - and their scientists are part timers

 

Part-time does not mean incompetent

 

andyR

 

 

Thank you.

[Bob Jerunkel]

I feel the BMP will benefit commercial fishermen as well as anglers because,

a) a MLS of 45cm will mean the fish have spawned before being taken. Obviously that will benefit recruitment year on year. Bass wont become a pressure stock if its looked after so no quotas.

Bigger bass are worth more than small bass and the commercial fishermen wont have to compete with small imported farmed bass.

c) a 45cm bass is twice as big as a 36cm one so it will take half as many fish to fill a box. The fishermen wont have to spend as long catching the same value of fish as they do now.

 

Am I going to have to go through all the points that Pawson made?

Like I said they are his opinions and Ive given you mine.

I will go through them all if you want but you can lead O.K?

[Ryford]

So if the BMP is about developing a vibrant recreational fishery, whilst at the same time is conservation and economics driven, whats so wrong in having input from other experts?

 

As I said, the BMP goes beyond a more or less bass issue. It challenges the very direction in which UK and European fish have been managed since Huxley, where it has only ever been about safe biological limits and recovery plans. The notion that a stock that is not in immediate risk of callapse should be managed even more radically must be something of a challenge to many involved in fishery science and management.

 

andyR

[Jaffa]

So if the BMP is about developing a vibrant recreational fishery, whilst at the same time is conservation and economics driven, whats so wrong in having input from other experts?

 

As I said, the BMP goes beyond a more or less bass issue. It challenges the very direction in which UK and European fish have been managed since Huxley, where it has only ever been about safe biological limits and recovery plans. The notion that a stock that is not in immediate risk of callapse should be managed even more radically must be something of a challenge to many involved in fishery science and management.

 

andyR

 

I, for one, would like to hear a lot more from you.

[Ian Burrett]

The notion that a stock that is not in immediate risk of callapse should be managed even more radically must be something of a challenge to many involved in fishery science and management.

 

andyR

 

Hi Andy

A challenge Yes impossible No If you use the American striped Bass as an example.

[Ryford]

Ian,

 

Indeed the striped bass model is very useful but we should not forget that the striped bass stock was in freefall callapse when action was eventually taken.

 

Our own bass however have a massive head start in this respect and could quite possibly deliver far more, and far more quickly than BASS think. If the Scylla diving project is anything to go by, the actual increase in diving and economic activity is at least double the original estimate.

 

With so much historical evidence from around the globe proving that restored and healthy stocks mean big bucks, it never ceases to amaze me how slow the Governement and fishery managers have been to pick up on it. Not least of which the trade and charter skippers I might add.

 

Sea anglers are attempting to debunk the very fabric of european fishery policy which manifests itself in the CFP. Perhaps sea angling, with its massive economic output can bring about the radical changes needed at both national and european level.

 

Lets face it. Whilst the commercials complain and blame the CFP endlessly, it has changed very little since the Treaty of Rome. With its overwhelming dominence at both local (SFCs) and national levels, I would have thought that if the commercial industry really wanted radical change then it would have happened by now. Something that Wurzel and co might like to comment upon.

 

andyR

[stavey]

Lets face it. Whilst the commercials complain and blame the CFP endlessly, it has changed very little since the Treaty of Rome. With its overwhelming dominence at both local (SFCs) and national levels, I would have thought that if the commercial industry really wanted radical change then it would have happened by now. Something that Wurzel and co might like to comment upon.

 

andyR

 

Hi andy, presuming that the cfp does not include our 12 mile limit? and therefor has no effect within in it, i must say i agree with you, it is early days is'nt it as regards changes which may result as regards pressure from sea anglers and their organizations, the bmp being the first one of these, it will take time for commercial fishermen to start to take on board what obviously seems to them a threat to their living and regarded as a last straw, they do view any such proposals as a bit of a thin edge to a much larger wedge.

 

As a working tax payer i can understand why they may feel this way and i or anyone else would probably think the same when we felt their was a threat to our job and the way of making a living.

At the moment each side views each other as a threat (that cannot be denied) and as i have said many times on this forum we can carry on going around in circles getting nowhere pointing fingers blah blah blah and we may in the long run both get some small concessions from the government, but these will do little to improve the situation of our inshore waters, we need drastic measures "now" for both the commercials and rsa's to realy benefit, measures for the commercials like letting them land the discards and get a good wage for it, its a pointless waste to them and us to dump them over the side dead, as one poster said they could be used as feed for the salmon fish farms? To stop new entrepreneurs coming in and exhausting supplys for a quick buck you could issue licenses only to bona fide fishermen with long track records of fishing in these area's.

To make things seem not to one sided and to encourage a bit of give and take for the sea anglers, there could be exclusion zones for fishermen, and a mile from the beach where a lot of nursery areas lie should not sound unreasonable? there is another 11 mile out there to ply their trade.

 

As commercial fishermen and sea anglers are the two main stakeholders we could both make the goverment make bigger changes quicker together that would benefit "both" which is what our sea around us needs now! not 50 years on when its to late ( the grand banks spring to mind) this can only be achieved together and not as it is at the moment apart.............

[wurzel]

QUOTE

I would have thought that if the commercial industry really wanted radical change then it would have happened by now. Something that Wurzel and co might like to comment upon.

 

Believe me many have tried,

 

With the BMP it's the UK small time comercials that as always are getting the smelly end of the stick, If you realy feel it's about bass concervation take it to the French.

One pair team lands more in one week what I land in one year.

 

The facts as I understand them are, B.A.S.S are a very small minority of the anglers, with thier lobbing they have brought the numbers of anglers and the amount of money they are prepared to spend to the attention of the government, they now realise the revenue and vote patential of anglers, so what can we give them I hear them asking,

They know that like the bass anglers the commercial bass fishermen of the UK are a very small minority of the commercial fleet so they know they can force some of the BMP through with out to much oppisition.

It's politics pure and simple!

[Ryford]

Hi Wurzel,

 

Whether BASS is a minority organisation or not, I would question the idea that bass is a minority target fish for sea anglers.

 

It cannot be denied that the sea angling press is full of articles and stories about bass and where there isn't, there's an advert selling all the tackle imaginable to catch them.

 

The lesson I learned some years ago was that the secret to catching more and bigger bass in the medium to long term involves pen and ink and not a shed full of fishing tackle.

 

You may like to take a look at this report:

 

http://www.investinfish.org/reports.html

 

I sympathise with the small inshore operator who at least tries to make and effort and is prepared to discuss issues in the the way you do, but what really is the alternative? Do nothing?

 

Perhaps if bass had a quota then parts of the BMP could be used to protect the inshore fleet. But as you say, its a minor species so one wonders what all the fuss is about.

 

andyR

[Jaffa]

Hi Andy, Bass may be a "minor" commercial species but it swims in the same sea and has predator/prey and competition interactions with other fish species surely?

 

If you achieve the same level of bass population that the Americans have done with the stripers (at a historical high as i understand it?), then what are the effects, if any, going to be on other commercial or RSA species? esp bearing in mind that many species (e.g. the eel) may be in severe difficulty atm.

 

 

What about all the failing sea bird colonies? What does a huge bass population mean for them?

 

For my own area, I wonder what effect a big increase in Bass numbers will have on the Tay Estuary and the years of work put into protecting salmon stocks here. What are the effects of large numbers of protected bass going to be on other species that use estuaries as nursery areas?

 

From what I've read its suggested that the bass population of Cheasapeake Bay is now showing all the signs of reaching the carrying capacity of its environment, with malnourished fish, slower growth rates, and a disease outbreak of mycobacteriosis occurring (which i understand can be transferred to other species and to human beings). I also see its started an argument between the Bass "supporters" and commercials fishing menhaden, with each blaming the other for the crash in menhaden numbers.

 

Has any work been done on the implications of the BMP for other species, and if so any chance of a link please?

 

Cheers, Chris.