Well done Tesco

[Mikec]

The organisation that has taken the high street by storm by identifying consumer needs is now selling wild bass, table sized at a premium price of £13.95/kg against farmed at about £8kg.

 

Well done Tesco.

 

So much to no premium for wild fish and farmed displacing them. Another example of the lack of understanding of the market and misinformation of the campaigners to increase the bass size limit.

[Leon Roskilly]

The 'misinformation' is that the market for immature bass can be supplied from the fish farms, allowing the wild fish to not only spawn before being harvested, but also providing a larger fish to the market which commands an additional premium over the smaller fish.

 

It also means that two people can feast from a larger fish that has already spawned, rather than two people each needing an immature fish each.

 

By allowing fish to grow beyond 36cm (1lb) to 45cm (2lb), not only will the bass population consist of more spawners, but each fish caught will be worth double (price per lb), command an additional premium by satisfying a part of the market not supplied by the farms, and mean that overall mortality is reduced to feed the same number of people.

 

That will provide a more robust stock, making the future of the bass fishery more secure.

 

What the catching sector's marketing men now need to do is to persuade the public that a fillet of wild bass is far more desirable than a single immature bass, full of bones, staring up out of the plate, and is a much better environmental choice than eating baby fish that have not yet spawned.

 

Then everyone wins, catching sector and recreational angling sector too!

 

(Hmmm! Think I might drop Tescos a line - customer.services@tesco.co.uk )

 

And it is the development prospects of a thriving Recreational Sea Angling Sector that is capable of producing a much greater socio-economic return for UK PLC

 

But to do that means more and bigger fish for anglers to catch.

 

 

 

There seems little doubt that the value to the coastal economy of a fish caught by an angler exceeds the value of the same fish caught for commercial purposes by a fishing boat.

EU Green Paper

Edited June 10, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Norm B]

The 'misinformation' is that the market for immature bass can be supplied from the fish farms, allowing the wild fish to not only spawn before being harvested, but also providing a larger fish to the market which commands an additional premium over the smaller fish.

 

It also means that two people can feast from a larger fish that has already spawned, rather than two people each needing an immature fish each.

 

By allowing fish to grow beyond 36cm (1lb) to 45cm (2lb), not only will the bass population consist of more spawners, but each fish caught will be worth double (price per lb), command an additional premium by satisfying a part of the market not supplied by the farms, and mean that overall mortality is reduced to feed the same number of people.

 

That will provide a more robust stock, making the future of the bass fishery more secure.

 

What the catching sector's marketing men now need to do is to persuade the public that a fillet of wild bass is far more desirable than a single immature bass, full of bones, staring up out of the plate, and is a much better environmental choice than eating baby fish that have not yet spawned.

 

Then everyone wins, catching sector and recreational angling sector too!

 

(Hmmm! Think I might drop Tescos a line - customer.services@tesco.co.uk )

 

And it is the development prospects of a thriving Recreational Sea Angling Sector that is capable of producing a much greater socio-economic return for UK PLC

 

But to do that means more and bigger fish for anglers to catch.

EU Green Paper

 

It seems that it is a double edged sword to sell larger bass but I agree with the philosophy because, like it or not, the commercials will still catch bass and if Tesco etc don't buy them, the potters will. Once they wake up to the fact that larger fish are worth more per kg than smaller fish they may not be so anti a rise in the MLS. At the moment they win and win. The can still target and catch bass of 36cm but a bye catch of larger ones is a bonus. Now we just have to get DEFRA to see the light and act upon it.

[Mikec]

-->

QUOTE(Norm B @ Jun 10 2006, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems that it is a double edged sword to sell larger bass but I agree with the philosophy because, like it or not, the commercials will still catch bass and if Tesco etc don't buy them, the potters will. Once they wake up to the fact that larger fish are worth more per kg than smaller fish they may not be so anti a rise in the MLS. At the moment they win and win. The can still target and catch bass of 36cm but a bye catch of larger ones is a bonus. Now we just have to get DEFRA to see the light and act upon it.

 

 

The total market for under 1kg fish is bigger than the market for all other sizes. Over 1kg are worth more than under because there are not so many of them. Once the supply exceeds demand the price will drop and the total value of the commercial bass market will be smaller.

 

As for the EU qoutes, these are the people who have been managing the cod stocks for the last 30 years!

[Leon Roskilly]

Once the supply exceeds demand the price will drop and the total value of the commercial bass market will be smaller.

 

The total value of the bass landed in the UK, according to DEFRA is £3.2 million

 

Although for the purposes of the consultation DEFRA boosted this to £7.5 million, to allow for undeclared landings etc.

 

The value of the UK Recreational Bass Fishery is estimated at £100,000 (of the total £538 million spend by RSA/ overall worth of £1 billion)

 

Once more and bigger bass are available there is expected to be a significant increase in the Recreational value, let's say a modest 10% giving an additional £10million.

 

For UK PLC, this increase in the value of the recreational fishery will vastly outweigh any possible negative effect on the value of the commercial bass fishery (which is expected to increase in value anyway).

 

Mike, you need to stop thinking of fish as only being of any value to the catching sector, and as though the catching sector are the sole owners of the UKs fish stocks.

 

They are not.

 

Rather the catching sector has been allowed access to a resource that belongs to all of us, and in some cases a much greater public value can be attained by changing the management objectives to encompass the needs of other important stakeholders, whilst protecting, and perhaps enhancing, the overall interests of the catching sector.

 

A fish taken at 1lb cannot be taken again at 2lb (around 1kg), when it fetches twice the money even without a premium for size, has contributed to at leat one years spawning thus increasing the genetic diversity of the species, and perhaps has been caught and released by an angler or two before being netted, increasing the value of the RSA sector, as well as providing value to the catching sector when finally killed for profit.

[Mikec]

The total value of the bass landed in the UK, according to DEFRA is £3.2 million

 

 

The value of the UK Recreational Bass Fishery is estimated at £100,000 (of the total £538 million spend by RSA/ overall worth of £1 billion)

 

 

 

First number about right the remaining meaningless guesses.

 

Real number - less than 3,000 responses - meaningless guess 1.5 million sea anglers.

 

Assuming all the responses were in favour of the proposals to raise the bass size limit does that mean 1,497,000 anglers don't care and therefore would spend their money anyway?

 

I believe that the fish in the sea within 200 miles of the English coast or the middle point belong to anyone who has a right to be in England. As soon as the government says I have to pay £30,000 to catch and sell those fish then I have more say over them than someone who pays nothing. No taxation without representation - no pay no say.

[Leon Roskilly]

As soon as the government says I have to pay £30,000 to catch and sell those fish then I have more say over them than someone who pays nothing. No taxation without representation - no pay no say.

 

But Mike, you don't pay £30,000 to the government, they don't determine how much you have to pay for a licence.

 

The licence was given to a fisherman for free, with no recompense to the taxpayer for allowing access to such a valuable public asset, and now he's selling something he got for free onto you.

 

And it is purely between the buyer and seller of the licence how much is to be paid for it, nothing at all to do with the government.

 

The same as quota.

 

Handed out free then traded for cash.

 

Meanwhile managing the fishery for the benefit of the catching sector is costing all of us around £8,000 per annum, paid for through our council rates and general taxation.

 

Interestingly enough if the government does impose a licence on anglers and is collecting money from them, whilst it collects nothing from fishermen, by your logic, it should only be anglers who should have a say in how the fisheries are managed in future!

[Leon Roskilly]

The value of the UK Recreational Bass Fishery is estimated at £100,000 (of the total £538 million spend by RSA/ overall worth of £1 billion)

 

First number about right the remaining meaningless guesses.

 

Real number - less than 3,000 responses - meaningless guess 1.5 million sea anglers.

Mike better do some research before just guessing that the figures are a result of guess work.

 

Have a look at some of these reports for starters.

 

Within in them you will find descriptions of the rigorous procedures that were used to extrapolate the figure, tried and tested methodologies applied by independent and experience researchers who would be appalled at the idea that the verified figures are 'a guess'!!

 

Wherever the commercial landed catch is valued, it also includes the value of species that are of no interest at all to anglers.

 

Crustaceans, shellfish, nephrops (prawns), hake, monkfish etc.

 

And those species of most interest to anglers are usually of no great importance to the commercial sector eg mullet, conger eel, wrasse, flounder, tope and hounds and other small sharks and rays, etc, even bass.

 

Bearing that in mind it’s estimated that the proportion of the commercial catch for which anglers and fishermen compete, and which supports the bulk of the £1 billion worth of the Recreational Sea Angling sector, is no more than £50 million

 

Also to be borne in mind is that when policies have been put in place to enhance the 'Angling Experience' (More and bigger fish and an increased mix of species), the value of the Recreational Sea Angling Sector has soared.

 

(ie Following the recovery of the USA Recreational Striped Bass Fishery between 1981 and 1996 the consequential expenditure increased from $85 million to $560 million over the same period by anglers fishing for striped bass).

 

Of more value than comparing the current value of the sector would be an exercise to determine the realistic potential value of the different sectors given favourable management objectives aimed at development of the sectors (the Net Benefits report gives the likely outcome for the catching sector based on different scenarios that shows that at best, only limited growth would be possible, maybe as much as £650 million given extremely favourable conditions and acceptance by the industry of some severe retrenchment)

 

What should be emphasised is that the figures show that the value of the RSA sector is huge, and of great social and economic importance, increasing the quality of life of it’s millions of participants and providing livelihoods and business opportunities, often in coastal communities, and that it is capable of producing considerable additional growth if management policies are adopted to increase the quality of the angling experience.

 

And its growth potential is far bigger than any estimate of its current value.

 

 

Another relevant comparison to be carried out is: How much taxpayer’s money is used to support the catching sector in the way of costs for administration, science, grants, enforcement etc., compared to how much is returned by the catching sector into the public purse.

 

Compared to how much is paid into the public purse by the Recreational Sea Angling Sector (VAT approaching UKP100million!) and how much public money is used to support the RSA sector?

 

 

 

 

Recent Studies

 

 

In June 2006, the EU launched a Green Paper on Maritime Affairs, it states:

 

“One important relationship in the context of leisure activities is that between angling and fisheries.

 

The European Anglers Alliance states that Europe has an estimated 8-10 million recreational anglers at sea with a related industry of € 8 to 10 billion.

 

There seems little doubt that the value to the coastal economy of a fish caught by an angler exceeds the value of the same fish caught for commercial purposes by a fishing boat.”

 

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/doc/CO..._5_EN_ACTE2.doc

 

 

 

In April 2006 The Environment Agency published ‘Fishing for the Future’

 

“2.6 million (6%) of the 43 million people aged over 12 in England and Wales went fishing in freshwaters in the last year.

 

1.5 million people fished just in the sea.

 

With over 4 million people fishing last year, it is probably the nation’s favourite outdoor participation sport.

 

Even more people fish less frequently, with 20% (8.3 million) having been freshwater fishing in the last 10 years.

 

• About as many people again would like to try or return to angling if it were easier for them.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subje.../subjects/fish/

 

 

 

 

 

English Nature Research Reports, Number 448.

 

Executive Summary - Para 3 P6 of 18

 

" As a result we can only hazard a guess at the scale of economic value of inshore fisheries . Inshore boats( 10 m and under) make up most of the fishing fleet, accounting for around 80% of all registered vessels in England & Wales, and around 60 % of active fishermen work the inshore waters.

 

The best estimate of the value of commercial landings from these waters is about £ 35 million, or 25 % of all landings into England & Wales by UK registered boats.

 

But the real economic value of the inshore waters is a good deal higher.

 

Around one million sea anglers fish the inshore waters of England & Wales once a year, generating £ 140 million income for the coastal economy.

 

Revenue from inshore fisheries is particularly important in some rural regions, though by contrast with ports of Scotland very few areas south of the border can truly be called fisheries dependent."

 

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/news...to/Execsu~1.pdf

 

 

 

In February 2005, the Environment Agency published ‘a better environment, healthier fisheries ‘

 

Although concerned with Freshwater Fisheries, the social benefits provided by the development of Recreational Sea Angling are very much the same.

 

"Healthier fisheries means healthier local communities and economies was the message from the Environment Agency at the launch of 'A better environment, healthier fisheries: better fisheries for our nations' today.

 

"Fisheries is about more than just fishing and our work is a key influence on local economies throughout England and Wales," Dafydd Evans, Head of Fisheries, said today.

 

"Angling creates jobs and prosperity, extends visitor seasons and creates more business for restaurants, pubs, shops and hotels."

 

Full Report at:

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commo...ure_1311678.pdf

 

See also: http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=514

 

 

 

 

In August 2005, a study by the Environment Agency (‘Public Attitudes to Angling 2005’)

notes:

 

“Based on a population aged 12 and over in England and Wales of 44,254,462 the number of people aged 12 and over who had been sea angling is 3 million.”

 

 

See:

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commo...ree_1153660.pdf

 

 

 

A report into the value of Recreational Sea Angling was commissioned from Drew Associates by DEFRA.

 

Published in July 2004, it calculated that the direct spend by Recreational anglers in the England & Wales amounted to £538 million and the total worth of the sector could be some £1.3 billion.

 

The report can be downloaded from:

 

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports...ing/default.asp

 

 

 

 

A report entitled ‘A Bio Economic Review Of Recreational Angling for Bass’, produced by the Scarborough Centre for Coastal Studies can be downloaded from:

 

http://www.hull.ac.uk/coastalobs/media/pdf/bass.pdf

 

 

 

A report into the UK fishing Industry, produced by the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit also contains information about the Recreational Angling sector.

 

It values the recreational sector as being worth ‘at least £1 billion’ and estimates that there are 2 million people who went sea angling in England & Wales in 2002

 

This report can be downloaded from:

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fisheries/index.asp

 

 

 

 

An authoritative study, conducted by Nautilus consultants, valued the Welsh Inshore fishery at £8 million per annum. It valued the contribution of Recreational Sea Angling to the Welsh economy at £28 million. The full report (PDF format) can be downloaded from:

 

http://www.nautilus-consultants.co.uk/pdfs/wales.pdf

 

(In fact, the Nautilus report was challenged in a document produced by the Countryside Commission of Wales that felt that a truer figure for the economic benefit of Recreational Angling is closer to £57million).

 

 

 

A further report on the value of recreational angling has been compiled by Nautilus for the Invest In Fish project in the South-West ( http://www.investinfish.org ).

 

See:

http://www.investinfish.org/documents/TheM...Anglers_001.pdf

 

 

 

 

And a European Study is now underway

 

See: http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=155

 

And: http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest/index.php?view=154

 

 

 

 

Catching Sector

 

Statistics on the value and employment within the catching sector are available at:

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/stats/index.htm

 

(The value of the landings of the UK fleet, both in the UK and in foreign ports for 2004 was £513 million, again down on previous years)

 

and

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=8181

 

 

 

 

Comparison with the value of the catching sector

 

 

Attention has been drawn to the apparently greater economic worth of the Recreational Sea Angling Sector over the Commercial Catching Sector and as ‘Best Value Management’ seems to indicate that some stocks could be more usefully managed for development of the Recreational Sector, there has been some reaction to this from proponents of the Commercial Sector.

 

“The two sectors are very different and cannot be directly compared”

 

 

However it is inevitable that such comparisons will be made, and the following points should be borne in mind when doing so.

 

 

 The commercial sector is supported by public money in direct subsidies, compensation, administration, research and enforcement etc. No contribution is made by the commercial sector (fishing boat licences, although now worth many thousands of pounds, were issued to them without charge by the government). Subtract the amount of public money paid out to maintain the commercial sector from the annual contribution of the sector to the economy and the residual net worth of the sector (if any) is minimal.

 

 Apart from a few thousand pounds distributed to the Governing Bodies by Sport England, no public money is currently expended to support and develop the Recreational Sea Angling Sector.

 

 The direct spend of sea anglers in England and Wales is estimated to be £538million, most of this spend will be subject to VAT, contributing significantly to the public purse. (So whereas commercial fishing is supported out of the public purse the recreational sea angling sector is not, in fact the public purse gains considerably from activities associated with recreational sea angling ie VAT, income tax and corporation tax).

 

 Those (mostly declining) fish stock resources that support the £538 million direct spend of sea anglers in England & Wales, have a first hand sale value in England & Wales of only £52 million.

 

 Faced with biological limits that are mostly being exceeded, there is little possibility for development of the commercial sector; rather there is likely to be a need for continuing painful retrenchment to match catching capacity to the marine environment’s capacity before any possible stock restoration on which subsequent limited commercial expansion can take place.

 

 Evidence from overseas shows that the economic contribution of the recreational sector (which has low environmental impact and minimum fish mortality) increases several fold when fishery management objectives are changed to deliver a better angling product (more, but more importantly, bigger specimens of those species attractive to sports anglers). The number of anglers, the number of trips made by each angler and the spend per trip (with good fishing assured, anglers invest more in quality tackle, boats etc) all increase significantly for relatively little investment.

 

 Much commercial fishing causes environmental damage. Although such environmental damage is not shown in the ‘economic balance sheet’ it has become common for such damage to be valued in terms of services provided by the environment to mankind (ie generation of abundant fish stocks, generating the food chain destroyed by the damage caused to the seabed and its ecology by bottom trawling, disturbance of the marine ecosystem and ecological balance etc) and the cost of replacing these services, as well as the cost of environmental repair and restoration. These costs should be deducted from the value of the commercial sector. In contrast there is very little environmental cost associated with the recreational sector.

 

 Should money and management be invested in a sector that is in unavoidable decline, or be used to develop the potential of a sector that has huge undeveloped potential?

 

 Comparing the whole value of each sector is largely irrelevant, anglers are not interested in shellfish, crustaceans and many fin fish and likewise many species of great interest to anglers are of no or little interest to the commercial sector. Around 60% of the value of the commercial sector can be discounted if attempting to compare the sectors with regard to the species that the sectors can be can be said to have competing management objectives for.

 

 When talking of redesignating species for recreational purposes, (eg buying out of salmon licences) the commercial sector will often demand that they be compensated for loss of opportunity. What should be borne in mind is a) Often we are talking of a declining opportunity, Commercial fisherman will have the opportunity of diversifying into the recreational sector (as many farmers have had to do) c) The first hand value of their catch does not represent the value on which compensation needs to be considered, rather all the costs associated with obtaining that catch need to be deducted to arrive at a net value to the fishermen who are being asked to forgo that catch in future. Government revenues from increased recreational activity (VAT etc) will often surpass that figure.

 

 The point is often made that when the value of the catching sector is expressed as the first hand value of the landed catch, that it must be remembered that fishermen also spend money on boats, fuel, wages etc and that this spending by the sector should also be included. But the money that fisherman have to spend on boats, loans, wages, fuel, equipment etc all has to be paid from the money they make by selling the fish they catch. It cannot be counted twice!

 

 But the fishing industry also supports other jobs such as in fish processing, fish and chip shops etc! What has to be remembered is that 85% of the fish processed in the UK comes from abroad. And those ‘UK jobs’ in the processing sector are often filled by seasonal immigrant workers, who send much of their earnings back home to support their families there (and this is increasingly true of UK fishing boat crewmen).

 

“Over the 25 years since 1981, there has been a very substantial increase in the amount of fish which is imported into the UK from foreign catchers for processing and/or consumption. Only a relatively small proportion of the fish now consumed in the UK is caught by the UK fleet while much of the fish caught by the UK fleet is exported. The health of the UK catching sector is no longer of such central importance to the UK seafood industry.”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...finalreport.pdf

 

Reply to MP’s question:

 

Dear Mr Whittingdale,

 

You have asked the library to provide you with information regarding the contribution to the economy from recreational sea angling compared with normal commercial sea fisheries, further to our recent telephone conversations.

 

I have been in touch with officials in the relevant department at the environment agency who have provided me with their latest available research , the substance of which I have included in this letter . They have advised me that they are not aware of any comparisons made for England and Wales comparing the relative contributions to the economy from sea angling and commercial fishing for sea fish. The agency currently only has marginal responsibility for sea fish , in contrast to their responsibilities for salmon, trout , freshwater fish and eel fisheries.

 

However , the agency have referred me to a report drafted by Nautilus for the national assembly for Wales in 2000 examining the contribution by fisheries to the economy of Wales , which reported that sea angling turnover was estimated at £28.7 million and employed 471 people (full time equivalent). This compares with inshore fishing turnover of £8.8 million (598 employed, full time equivalent).

 

The national rivers authority estimated in 1994 that there were 1.1. Million sea anglers in England and Wales , compared to 840,000 game (ie trout and salmon ) anglers.

 

A more recent study commissioned by the agency indicated that game anglers spent around £500 million on the sport (2001), and that the cost per trip for sea angling are expected to be the same , or only slightly less, than that for game angling. The agency estimates that gross annual expenditure by sea anglers, therefore , is also around £500 million per year.

 

The environment agency does not have data on the turnover of the inshore commercial fisheries sector for England and Wales , but officials anticipate that this might be obtained from the department of the environment, food and rural affairs. Please contact me if you would like me to approach the department for this information. The agency has suggested that they would be able to provide you with the relevant data concerning salmon fishing (whether sea or inland), should you require it.

 

 

From Western Morning News.(WMN) 1/5/2003

 

Figures quoted by Malcolm Bell, Chief Executive for SW

Tourism as follows :

 

" Eight per cent of our visitors come to the West Country for fishing -

three per cent for coarse fishing and five per cent for sea fishing and with

a total of 10 million visitors per year bringing in £2 Billion of revenue

you can work out for yourself that the result (angling ban due to fish

feeling pain) would be devastating"

 

five per cent (sea anglers) of 10 million visitors - 500,000 visitors

equal to the population of Cornwall)

 

pro rata 5 per cent of £2 billion revenue contribution to SW Region - £100 million.

[Leon Roskilly]

Assuming all the responses were in favour of the proposals to raise the bass size limit does that mean 1,497,000 anglers don't care and therefore would spend their money anyway?

 

Look at any public consultation and the number of people actually responding is appallingly low.

 

DEFRA went to great lengths to ensure that the catching sector was fully engaged in the consultation, by sending out information to skippers, by including over 500 businesses and individuals in the distribution of the consulatation documents mostly from the fishing industry (with only around 20 parties from RSA), by distributing an issue of Fishing Focus including an exhortation to respond in Fishing News, but not any angling magazines or papers, and attending meetings with fishermen's organisations around the country.

 

Most sea anglers never even got to hear that a consultation was in progress let alone how to respond.

 

Even so, DEFRA were completely blown away by the size of the response, especially when compared tosimilar consultations in the past that barely prompted 100 responses, with most just having a handful of responses recieved.

 

eg

 

Bass Pair Trawling

19 responses

 

Protection of Cetaceans

384 responses

 

Scallop Conservation

10 responses

 

Inshore Enforcement

130 responses

 

Even the Consultation by the Prime Ministers Strategy unit, leading to the 'Net Benefits' report, recieved just 149 responses.

PMSU Responses

 

 

So how many responses do you think came in from the catching sector Mike?

 

Did many of them bother?

Edited June 10, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Mikec]

Mike better do some research before just guessing that the figures are a result of guess work.

 

Have a look at some of these reports for starters.

 

Within in them you will find descriptions of the rigorous procedures that were used to extrapolate the figure, tried and tested methodologies applied by independent and experience researchers who would be appalled at the idea that the verified figures are 'a guess'!!

 

 

I wish I had as much faith in public sector methodologies that you have when it suits your point.

 

The government created a licence system that was designed to cap the catching capacity in the 80s. It was designed to be traded and yes the price is set by the market. I don't remember any anglers kicking off about it at the time. It was a system that restricted public access to a public asset.

 

There are very few fishermen who have not paid for the licence they are fishing with now. VAT is also applicable to such sales.

 

Selling public assets to the private sector is something that governments are not adverse to. Water, Gas, electric, coal, TSB bank, nuclear industry, school playing fields etc etc.