Solution Anyone?. Recreational Angling Response

[The doctor]

Are fish stocks in significant decline around the UK coast, if so, what is the reason, if you believe that they are not, why not'.

 

Please only post recreational responses here;

[big_cod]

I think i have give my thoughs many times on here doc but these look like very interest topics cant wait for the barrage.

Edited March 31, 2006 by big_cod

[Guest CJS2]

Are fish stocks in significant decline around the UK coast, if so, what is the reason, if you believe that they are not, why not'.

 

Please only post recreational responses here;

 

'Felixstowe', compared with 15-20 years ago, we are catching mostly fish that are boarder line throw backs, with the odd 'slightly' larger fish for the pot. Used to be the other way round, all were keepable, with the odd undersize. There-in may be some of the problem, very little was thrown back because cod stock was not under preasure 20 years back, they were nearly all in the 6 to 10 pound size.

 

Edited March 31, 2006 by CJS2

[Fastd]

Good question doc

 

 

 

In my opinion recreational fishing is in decline if only based on my distant memories of going out on the cobles from Brid in the late seventies when cod were plentiful and everyone caught fish.

 

 

 

There is no one reason for this decline, I see it as a combination of factors all adding up to being bad news for fish.

 

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that recreational sea angling has any major impact on overall stocks except on a very localised basis where anglers are targeting small pockets of fish such as in the Mull or an estuary for large bass. If every angler killed what he caught in these situations the stocks would soon disappear, a point that was brought out by Davy Holt in a thread recently where he stated that he would expect about 30% of the skate caught in a particular area to already be tagged. Great news for the anglers and even better news for the skate.

 

 

 

When a charter skipper takes out a party they may well "clean out" a wreck but this in comparison to the size of the oceans is insignificant.

 

 

 

If this kind of angling pressure is compared to a modern trawler it is totally insignificant. Some stats of what a trawler can do are available here and I assume that the guy knows what he is talking about as its signed "Captain".

 

 

 

Unfortunately the current rule makers are slow to react to a rapidly changing industry and appear to only react when things are at crisis levels. I realise this is due to the complicated procedures and the number of parties involved in any proposed legislation. Add to this the difficulties of actually measuring the current stock levels of any particular species (something I believe you are well aware of ) and it all adds up to a long winded process that is unable to adapt to changing circumstances.

 

 

 

I can fully appreciate that the commercial sector see any new legislation as preventing them making a living and can only imagine the outcry if a law was proposed to ban RSA. The modern commercial trawler is a very efficient (and all too often indiscriminate) killing machine with a capability that is far greater than its predecessors from the seventies. This has lead to commecial fishing to be described in the Net Benifits Report as a boom and bust industry, a situation that will continue untill the legislators come up with a system that can react before the bust part of the fish stock cycle.

 

 

 

I think the species that are not commercially viable appear to be doing well and those like the cod and haddock are not. There is probably heaps of data available to prove me wrong but you asked for peoples opinions and that is mine.

 

 

 

Dave

[glennk]

Hi Nigel. I guess I should use up some of "all that spare time" so I thought I would reply to your question. Something worth posting on but I wont be making a habbit of it. I hope the commercial fishermen will be sticking to their side of the bargain and those who are commercials and anglers should only reply to the commercial question right ? Or wrong ?

 

Are fish stocks in decline around the UK coast ?

 

A simple answer is yes. How do I, a simple man from Whitby who has rarely set foot aboard a commercial boat for fishing purposes, know this ? Well there are several reasons I believe that fish stocks are in decline:

 

1. My own experience. I have fished the coastline around these parts since being a small child out with my father on the west pier at Whitby. I have kept extensive and detailed diaries of my catches and the catches of others on my area of coastline for as many years as I care to remember. It is evident that the number of fish hitting the shores is significantly less than it was only 10 years ago. The decline in numbers hitting the shore over a longer period appears even more significant.

Having surfed the internet and it's angling related sites and forums, and having read various national angling magazines I have drawn the conclusion that my experience is similar to that of a large number of sea anglers across the country. I understand that those new to the sport wont have a clue what the hell I am talking about but as I disclosed to you the other day I believe that is simply because they have nothing to compare - Although i'm sure some will wish to put me right on that.

So Ive said so far that I believe there are less fish coming ashore. I dont think any comparitve research has been done on this matter and Im not sure if the right types of data would exist for anyone to do such a comparison across times. So I have no hard proof it's only my experience - and that of many thousands of others of course. Admittedly what I am saying is probably not the case for all fish but I know of few that are booming right now.

With regard to the reasons behind less fish hitting the shore. There are lots of theories on this floating about and probably there may be an element of truth behind some of them. Someone mentioned the other day the cleaning up of sewerage has killing off the populations of food. I struggle to find my own personnal evidence of that. I will give an example but will not name the place for fear of 10 million worm diggers arriving. I dig my worm very near a sewer pipe end, the output of which was cleaned up over five years ago. There is as many lug worms on that beach as their has ever been if not more and the populations of small white rags is growing yearly. I also fish this same ground regulally. Catches of 20-30 cod a night in the 80's were not unknown even on a calm night, catches of 10-15 cod on nights was known many times through the 90's, here we are in 2006 and I havent managed more than 5 on any night this side of the milenium. The worms are still there but the fish arent. As for the amount of crab around the sewer pipes and on our scars ? I see no difference there. Well, I tell a lie - there is more velvet crabs than you can shake a stick at. Do the cod not eat velvets ? . I guess what Im trying to say is that the lack of food explanation does not hold true to me. I see as much food on our shore as I ever did - The sand is full of shrimps, prawns and razors and everything that has always existed, and what people forget is these worm beds etc do not just stop dead at the shoreline. THe only foodsource I can see that is missing is the sandeal. I guess as a marine biologist you will be putting me right on a few things there but untill someone can show me hard and conclusive evidence that the fish arent coming ashore beacause of lack of food rather than lack of actual fish too come ashore I will stick to my belief that that theory is just one dreampt up by commercial fishermen to take the heat of themselves as the main reason for fish not coming too our shore. A smoke screen I like to call it.

 

2. Because the scientists say so. You dont have to look far to find research that says the majority of fish in our waters are in decline. Have a browse around the net, read the links Leon posts, visit ICES website and take a look at what they are saying. The scientists are saying the fish are dissapearing stating many reasons including overfishing and global warming. I am always sceptical about the global warming theory - again I suspect it's another smokescreen - Its printed that often in the fishing news that it has to be - or at least thats my belief. No doubt global warming is playing its part but I am not convinced on how big that part is. I understand it was Ben Bradshawe himself in the fishing news who called any scientist following that belief a " Maverick", well actually it was a handfull of mavericks - with the handfull relating to the number who actually followed it. I also wonder just how good the science is behind the theory of global warming being the main reason for decline in fish numbers. It certainly doesnt come from scientist's as respected by their peers as those at ICES. Perhaps Nigel could help me with that query?. But then again they once said the world was flat so I guess the future may show us the truth with the global warming theorists.

One thing I am certain of is that it could take many hundreds of years to reverse global warming if it is possible at all. We can stop over fishing our seas tomorrow if we wish.

 

 

Well Im not sure how to close this off but perhaps I could conclude that from my own experince and from reading research outcomes I believe that our sea fishing is well and truely knackered with the main reason being that our fishermen have shafted us whilst our past governemnts and those of Europe have stood by and watched and quite possibly at times applauded too.

 

Sorry for any grammer or spelling mistakes, I would normally post up then edit but as im under mod control I cant be bothered to wait.

[Steve Coppolo]

I think that fish stocks have declined significantly around the UK. Well, stocks of commercially targetted species have anyway. I'm not sure exactly how bad things are in other areas, so I can only give my thoughts on my own area.

 

Most people look back at the Cod fishing they remember and compared to now, it's in a sad state. Maybe there are only a fraction of the commercial boats working now than there used to be, but the damage was done in years gone by. What happened to Plaice? I remember catching the odd Plaice when I was young but I haven't seen one for years now. Instead of looking at what has happened in the past, maybe people should look at what is happening now and what may happen in the future.

 

Take bass as an example of what's happening now. Before they were targetted commercially in a big way there were huge shoals of good size bass and plenty were caught by anglers. Now we have huge numbers of small bass but the numbers of big fish is dropping year on year. Give it another few years as it is and we'll end up with the same situation we have now with Cod. Then what will happen?

If bass also get fished to a point where they aren't worth targetting commercially, commercial fishermen will turn to another species. They are already targetting dover sole in a big way, more so since Cod became scarce. As not many anglers target soles regularly, we don't really have a clue as to what's happening to the stocks. It could be that great damage is being done to them as well. The Belgium boats take a phenominal amount of soles. I've heard that certain populations of soles are "under pressure". So when bass and soles aren't worth fishing for any longer, what will the next species be?

 

The fact that there are a lot fewer commercial boats fishing should be cause for concern in itself. If there was still plenty of fish to catch, there would still be plenty of fishing boats catching it. To me it looks like the commercial fishing industry is slowly strangling itself to death. I've heard it said many times that fish prices haven't gone up very much, if at all, for years. Yet we know that the cost of living has gone up plenty. How are the few that are left managing to survive?

 

As for a solution, if the MLS for all species was set at a size where that species had spawned twice before it was caught, things would be a whole lot better. It seems like just plain common sense to me, but mention an increase in MLS for any species to most commercial fishermen and you'll get nothing but objections. For some reason they seem to have a fixation with catching juvenile fish. Maybe it's because they know that there isn't an awful lot more than tiddlers out there to catch?

Edited March 31, 2006 by Steve Coppolo

[Fastd]

I think the answer as to how they survive is by increased efficiency. I would not be suprised to find that despite the fewer number of boats the ability of the commercial fleet to catch fish has not reduced in proportion. In the seventies it took a 3.5 litre diesel to get anything like an acceptable performance from a car and now I have a two tonne van powered by a 1.9 litre engine. This gives me a good top speed and an increased carrying capacity and I have no doubt the same applies to boat engines.

[seaside]

Are fish stocks in significant decline around the UK coast, if so, what is the reason, if you believe that they are not, why not'.

 

Please only post recreational responses here;

 

I'd say there is certainly a change in population - for certain species, generally the economic ones, decline is very evident. Herring and cod populations are greatly reduced since the 60s. However, there are species whose numbers have increased, dogfish, whiting and triggers spring to mind.

 

The cause of these variations is most probably a complex combination of commercial fishing pressures, RSAs, global warming, geographical location, normal fish year class variations, availability of food etc. for which there has been very little truly independent and effective research performed. Too many self-interest groups proving someone else is to blame.

 

The real problem, as far as I see it, is that the government has no real interest in understanding the overall issue, because as a result of signing up to the CFP, it's hands are more or less tied in what it can realistically do to facilitate change and there is insufficient political pressure to force a focus - ie :: there's not enough votes in it.

 

Without government creating the necessary laws, incentives, marine parks, de-commissionings etc., etc., there is no incentive for change by any of the groups so it just leaves the various conflicting interest groups to keep slugging it out to ensure the waters remain muddy and only then appears to take action when a 10 second soundbite stands a chance of glossing up the image of a politician.

 

For many RSAs there is also somewhat the problem of the lack of acceptance of change or unrealistic expectation of their fishery.

[stavey]

Yes i do believe fish stocks have significantly declined especially the more popular eating types like cod and haddock etc, of course every one knows this but not all would like to admit it for their own reasons.

 

Now because some sea anglers have decided to do something about it and address the real issue over the last couple of so decades, we have arrived at where we are now.

I can remember when even as a teenager when you could still catch cod to double figures regularly off the beaches i fish that one day this would be all gone! just by the sheer amount of commercial pressure we use to see with our own eyes! at every starry night's codding session, but it was not only just the hustling bustling night lights of the many trawlers that littered the inshore waters that hammered home my fears but also the many chartered wrecking trips that i used to go on as well.

 

There was many many more charter boats for anglers in the seventies it seemed any man and his dog owned one each taking out a half dozen burly geezers to "first" inshore wrecks and then when these where exhausted and fished out it was out to the deep water ones to do the same, mans greed had taken over on both acounts and that is why we are where we are today, as an angler then! i have no problems excepting that i played my part to bringing on the problems we face today.

 

So what is the solution? well as individuals we all have our own ideas and that is healthy, but not very productive in the long run as doc has sort of outlined, first, i think self admission that we all had a hand in bringing about the situation then, second, doing something about what we may have left, and third, keep on till you have achieved something worthwhile atleast, i personally think it will be hard to bring back the days of yester-year's days of plenty ( here where i am for cod anyway) but there are some sportfish like mullet bass and smoothound that are still around in enough numbers to warrant working at getting things done to protect the future, and that means supporting our representative org's financially, and being prepared to roll up our sleeves when asked or not, practicing one's own conservation like putting back fish alive and carefully! should all be second nature to the modern sea sporting angler, yes and the taking of a fish or two home for supper is ok if people want now and then, but just these latter actions alone is not enough if we are not to see these species go the same way as the cod.

 

So there is my tuppence worth for the mo and i begining to think it is not worth hammering on, to find common ground with the commercials on here, better for us to decide what is best for the modern sea angler's future and how to go about it? when this is done support our representatives to carry it out.

Edited March 31, 2006 by stavey

[DoubleShotDamo]

Yes, and no!

 

Shore fishing in Sussex has shown decline in cod / codling, eels, flounders, plaice, mullet, etc.

 

But there has been a marked increase in fish like smoothound, dogfish, bass (yes, bass!!), good size bream etc.

 

Everyone blames commercial (over)fishing, which obviously has an impact. But the fish increasing in numbers apparently prefer clean water. Spider crabs have increased dramatically off the Channel coast, and these live in clean water as opposed to polluted water. The water conditions are much better now than what they were.