Bass Anglers Urged to Flood EU Commissioner with Emails Supporting Emergency Measures to Save Stocks

[Anglers' Net]

The Angling Trust has begun the New Year battling for bass with a fresh call to anglers urging them to flood the EU Commissioner with emails supporting the call by the UK for emergency measures to save threatened bass stocks.

 

Click here to view the full article. Please reply below to add your comments, if any.

[barry luxton]

^{yes a few of us are already sending off emails to the eu, direct as opposed to the address given below to prevent a disaster within the uk commercial and rsa charter boat industries. Concocted primarily by TAT.}

^{They are using aged information, ignoring 3 warm winters. Failing to link the western approach stock with the rest of the channel, etc, etc to spread their doom and gloom. Once they have got their legislation in place for the uk, that won't be targeted or fit for purpose, it will be impossible to remove.}

 

^{First and foremost TAT requires a consultation with all rsa before they attempt to destroy the unencombant profitable and healthy industry, it ain't broke.}

[barry luxton]

TAT need to change tact grow some balls and speak to the likes of these guys, sample below to sort out any issues as opposed to causing a huge rift between the two set's of fishermen, anglers who have least impact on the whole of the bass stock, it's disgusting that TAT are putting forward secular and selfish ideals, where they do not have a mandate to do so, enjoy this link, I certainly did:

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/9101062283/permalink/10152807649072284/

[barry luxton]

copied in it's entirety to demonstrate just how removed from reality TAT have become:

 

The following, which will appear in next week's Fishing News, is probably the best letter that it has ever been my pleasure to see sent into the paper: GANGING UP ON FISHERMEN Dear Editor,
The heading above is because fishermen are too busy working their nuts off trying to earn a living to have time to defend themselves.
Much damage is being caused to the fishing industry by conservationists who are self proclaimed ‘experts’. Some of these ‘experts’ are very good at manipulating the media who love them, and publish every dubious, or in some cases, completely false, stories given to the press.
I say ‘false’ because many of their assumptions and calls for fishing bans or stops, or catch restrictions are based on ICES advised quotas, which are often pure guesswork, conservationists treat that guesswork figure as gospel in their campaigns and castigate ‘wicked commercial fishermen’ when it is they (the conservationists) who should be prosecuted because their so-called evidence would not stand up in court.
Some time ago I purchased a copy of The Times and was drawn to the heading “Stop Buying British Cod”. This report was totally, factually inaccurate and featured a large unregistered Eastern Bloc or Taiwanese stern trawler fishing illegally. I rang the Times, incensed by their jounalism, only to be told that their environmental correspondent was new and had only just started. Further calls drew a blank and there was, of course, no retraction, so that mud stuck. That article probably resonated with their readers, who did not know any better and, as a result, did not purchase cod caught by British fishermen on British markets.
Junk news, headline grabbing, articles which are strictly non-factual are extremely damaging to this industry and need to be counter acted by legal action, enforced retraction of the offending article, and damages.
The Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, the Blue Marine Foundation and others base all of their recommendations on hypothetical arithmetic – the same as ICES does on species quotas.
There is, as a result of this, huge unfair discrimination against British commercial fishermen who only have a very small percentage of what is left of the “imaginary pile” of paper fish on the EU table, within British limits. And, as these groups ‘gang up’ and prepare to bully the European Union, our share will disappear.
This is the scenario developing behind a suggestion that “sea bass must be kept for anglers”. Bloody cheek!
Commercial registered vessel fishermen, operating as food suppliers, and being subjected to the relentless cutting of the previously mentioned ‘guesswork’ should not be controlled by Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society, Times Newspapers, other media groups or the Blue Marine Foundation, who are currently representing specific interest groups (i.e. anglers) against what has now become, or perhaps always were, the ‘natural enemy’, due to the commercial nature of fish catching, the commercial fisherman. Leisure fishermen are being pitched against commercial fishermen to reduce their existing quotas.
There has always been a strong argument that vagaries of tide, wind, and frequent weather changes make stocks of fish virtually impossible to predict. Famine and feast have co-existed around the coastal fisheries of our islands since forever, often without any logical explanation. Put a ban, or huge restriction, on certain species and they will appear everywhere, and then they will have to be discarded!
Professor Callum Roberts, another “expert” from the Blue Foundation, states: “Switching the bass fishery to hook and line fishing only, recreational fishing, would make excellent economic sense. It would eliminate most of the environmental impacts associated with the commercial net and trawl fisheries, including prevention of damage to sensitive near shore bottom habitats and by-catches of dolphins and porpoises.”
This professor of marine biology has obviously not heard of the sand and aggregate dredgers that remove millions of tonnes of fish habitats permanently from the seabed, annually. Nor has he heard of the effects of electric bean trawling upon estuarial Dover sole stocks, and the fracturing of other species’ back bones as a by-catch, or by kill, from this electric beaming.
The group this professor represents are using selective methods to discriminate. Their argument is recreational angler specific, accompanied by ‘loaded economics’ that require scrutiny, in favour of the fishing industry.
How dare they try and interfere with a flawed system that has seen almost all quotas cut to the bone year after year leaving commercial fishermen with almost nothing to work on.
British fishermen could feed the nation, or at least part thereof, a fact always historically overlooked by politicians until times of war, or perhaps when discussing leaving the European Union.
If the latter happens, UK territorial fishing limits need to be extended. If the public were accurately informed by an industry fight-back, they might be less inclined to donate to the causes which have become out-of-control ‘monsters’, practicing a type of anarchy by imposing their views upon a general public without consultation, disregarding criticism from scientists (on the causes of climate change), and being given an easy ride on law-breaking from the judiciary.
It’s about time politicians did something for us for a change and not just empty promises – guarantees of legislation changes is what is needed.

A personal view from
Mr M.W. Jackson Snr,
Ex-trawler skipper / ex-marine group leader

 

We have asked the guy to send a copy to the fisheries minister and send another off to the e u.

Edited January 7, 2015 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

copy from another commercial fisherman, Stephen Gathergood, known him for a few years now, he tells it how he see's it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/9101062283/permalink/10152813197252284/

Edited January 10, 2015 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

my letter to the e u. hoping others have sent theirs in.

 

8th January 2015

 

Dear Commissioner Vella,

 

I understand that the u k has asked the commission to consider emergency measures to protect the bass stocks. I ask that my correspondence is included when these measures are considered.

 

All of the protests emanating from the u k regarding the stock about to crash are based on aged and poor science. Our fisheries minister has been advised by an angling organisation called The Angling Trust abv TAT. At no time has the minister taken advice from other interested parties throughout the u k to persuade him that this stock is in danger. The commercial sector has not been asked or consulted in this instance.

 

TAT are relying on and have advised that the stock is dangerously depleted, based on surveys carried in one small area of the English Channel, the Solent. In addition they claim that it is the cold winters for five years that have affected the recruitment. What they have failed to advise is that we are now in our third winter in a row where cold winters have just not happened. So nature appears to be fixing, self healing the issue of cold winters to allow the stock to recruit naturally as opposed to issuing legislation where the possibility is that it will not work or fix the problem, if there is one.

 

They have also failed to take into consideration the spawning stock biomass from the western approaches. Their sister Organisation, BASS have carried out surveys and tagging previously that confirm that the stock spread far and wide up and down the channel and also areas of the bristol channel, Irish sea. No mention of this stock is included within TAT's argument that the bass stock is failing.

 

Ultimately TAT have made it known that they would like to see the Southern Ireland model imposed throughout the u k. Unfortunately after 15 years of the fishery being closed to commercial interests and a bag limit of two fish per day imposed on recreational sea anglers, abv RSA, the Irish committee are disappointed to see no improvement and are suggesting a one fish bag limit on their RSA. It is very clear that this management ideal was not targeted at the problem in the first place and to exclude stakeholders away from the fishery for such a long period of time, for no gain is a travesty. That should not be repeated within the u k waters.Unfortunately in this instance TAT have a hidden agenda to see legislation brought in for the u k bass industry and the rsa sector and my fear is that they are using selective information to pursue their aims. They are not representative of the rsa sector as they do not consult with the rsa. They do not have one RSA representative on their books despite their wages bill topping one million pounds annually.

 

All are aware of the commercial landings within the u k and the commercial landings by the French. The disparity is massive. I consider that no amount of management measures placed on the u k commercial or RSA industry will have an improving effect on the stock, unfortunately the target of management measures if they are considered necessary must surely be with the French landings, first and foremost. A few years ago now, the u k directed that their pair trawlers must not operate within 12 mile of the coast. Yet the French pair trawling industry are allowed to come within 6 mile of the u k coast and indeed they do. This again is confirmed with the u k commercial bass landings by the pair trawlers are approximately 3% of the total landings. I will not give a suggestion of the French pair trawl landings sufficient to say it is many times that of the u k's. In addition for fairness in with the argument of a fair share for all, the French also enjoy a massive amount of cod tac, compared with the u k fleet within the channel.