Guernsey Consulting on Bag Limits for Anglers

[Jaffa]

Hi Puffin,

 

Precisely! That is why there should be a period of data-gathering on the RSA sector by the introduction of logbooks. That would show the real picture and form a proper basis for decisions.

 

Makes sense to me anyway. I guess the form it takes will be what decides if its a good or bad thing for stocks and anglers? Anything that drags anglers into the national/EU system of quotas must be a bad thing. Is it possible to collect the data while avoiding becoming classified into an EU managers box? If so then great.

[Jaffa]

It is true that there are no figures to prove what I believe, that being that anglers did not land anything like 7 tonnes of flatfish from the Alderney charters in 2005. Neither is there any hard evidence to support the claim that they did. Therefore action against one "player" and no action against the others is unjustified.

 

Its action against the only sector they cannot effect or control atm surely? I believe ir would be called the "precautionary principal" by others?

[FishingGuernsey]

The fact that they have no control over anglers is what upsets the commercials most and has been said as a major problem to SFC's and IMO is being used as an excuse to mask commercial activities which are highlighted in another thread.

[Jaffa]

The fact that they have no control over anglers is what upsets the commercials most and has been said as a major problem to SFC's and IMO is being used as an excuse to mask commercial activities which are highlighted in another thread.

 

Irrelevant surely? The issue is whether the charter anglers may have significant impact on certain stocks.

 

The data for the commercials is there for the SFC to act upon as they see fit. Got a problem with the SFC management of stocks then then campaign to change it.

 

Who cares what the motivation behind the proposals is? It will get nil points in any response to them (my opinion ) because it has nothing to do with the questions they are asking.

 

What are the facts that we know?

 

From what i've read anyway:

 

*Angling charters are an important part of the Guernsey economy.

 

* Charters MAY be having a significant impact on certain stocks that are very important to both Guernseys commercial and charter fleet/tourism businesses. Estimates on their take vary greatly.

 

(I'd add that IMHE "accepted" angling/green thinking on how wonderful a method longlining/angling is compared with trawling,netting etc, breaks down when it comes to the big predatory flatfish. (I've no doubt for instance that he Davy Holt's of this world could make a big dent in whats left of the West Coast skate should he choose to do so.)

 

 

* No landing figures are available from the charters.

 

How are the SFC to manage their waters without data from an apparently significant sector? (Opinion: it makes sense for them to introduce precautionary bag limits in the absence of data. What the commercials do or do not want seems irrelevant) (more opinion: the charters need to gather that data and come up with answers before they get bit by bit sucked into the CFP and all that entails)

 

*Both Guernsey commercials and visiting charters need there to be fish there.

 

 

Opinion: there is an awful lot of politics about and the last thing this issue needs is more of it. Look after the stocks.

[chappers]

This proposal has nothing to do with preserving stocks, unfortunately it has been a political issue from the start, its essentially an extension of what goes on in Brussels with regards to negotiating quotas. Every nation wants to "preserve" its stocks by not letting outsiders fish for them. The home fleet still wants to catch as many fish as it is allowed to.

 

The difference with this is we as anglers may be able to have some effect this time.

 

As anglers it doesn't matter to us individually if we take a few less fish surely. personally speaking, even though I feel the bag limits suggested in the proposal are going a bit too far, I have never taken as many as 2 of each of those species from a CI trip.

 

The main thing is, is that by agreeing to a reduced take as anglers, we have a right to enter the negotiations and may be able to negotiate a tempering or even reduction in the commercial activities, in return.

This a rare oppertunity for us as anglers to maybe have some effect upon the commercial fishermen.

Edited September 18, 2006 by chappers

[Puffin]

This proposal has nothing to do with preserving stocks, unfortunately it has been a political issue from the start, its essentially an extension of what goes on in Brussels with regards to negotiating quotas. Every nation wants to "preserve" its stocks by not letting outsiders fish for them. The home fleet still wants to catch as many fish as it is allowed to.

 

The difference with this is we as anglers may be able to have some effect this time.

 

As anglers it doesn't matter to us individually if we take a few less fish surely. personally speaking, even though I feel the bag limits suggested in the proposal are going a bit too far, I have never taken as many as 2 of each of those species from a CI trip.

 

The main thing is, is that by agreeing to a reduced take as anglers, we have a right to enter the negotiations and may be able to negotiate a tempering or even reduction in the commercial activities, in return.

This a rare oppertunity for us as anglers to maybe have some effect upon the commercial fishermen.

 

You are absolutely correct that this is nothing to do with preserving stocks. Statements from SFO's confirm this. Greed is a natural human characteristic and I can understand Bailiwick of Guernsey commercial fishermen, or at least some of them, saying "their our fish and you can't have them". What I can't understand is a Government department that is willing to listen to such selfishness and risk doing serious damage to a tourism sector that contributes at least as much to the economy as fishing.

 

I admire your optimism in viewing this as an opportunity, but realistically, if anglers bow to this without any objection they are begging for further and more serious government interference in future, and will be lending weight to the argument that fish stocks belong to the commercials by god-given right.

 

By all means anglers represtentatives should be willing to negotiate, but blind acceptance is madness.

[chappers]

I have no real opptimism that we will be listened to, but this is the nearest we have ever got and on this occaission we do have some bargaining power and will be speaking more directly to the people it affects. Sometimes you have to pre-empt the strike and give something voluntarily and make a request in return and then sometimes you get something a little worse than you wanted but better than the worse case scenario. Short of boycotting the channel islands there is little more than negotiation and bargaining avialable to us.

I have sent my letter but I feel we need a more co-hesive effort put together with our own demands as to what we want from the commercial sector , or are willing to comprimise ourselves.

You can't just say I'm not accepting this as an argument against it, unless as I have already said you just implement an all out boycott, which obviously just gives the commercials what they want on both counts(both the implementation of their bag limits and the cahrters not fishing the islands.

 

It may sound defeatest but essentially if the Balliwick of Guernsey decide they will implement this then thats the way it will be, whether they have the resources or the implecation to enforce it is another matter entirely.

[steve good]

I have no real opptimism that we will be listened to, but this is the nearest we have ever got and on this occaission we do have some bargaining power and will be speaking more directly to the people it affects. Sometimes you have to pre-empt the strike and give something voluntarily and make a request in return and then sometimes you get something a little worse than you wanted but better than the worse case scenario. Short of boycotting the channel islands there is little more than negotiation and bargaining avialable to us.

I have sent my letter but I feel we need a more co-hesive effort put together with our own demands as to what we want from the commercial sector , or are willing to comprimise ourselves.

You can't just say I'm not accepting this as an argument against it, unless as I have already said you just implement an all out boycott, which obviously just gives the commercials what they want on both counts(both the implementation of their bag limits and the cahrters not fishing the islands.

 

It may sound defeatest but essentially if the Balliwick of Guernsey decide they will implement this then thats the way it will be, whether they have the resources or the implecation to enforce it is another matter entirely.

 

Hi Chappers

 

QUOTE/ with our own demands as to what we want from the commercial sector , or are willing to comprimise ourselves

 

The LOCAL commercial sector have been fishing these waters long before the mainland boats turned up, why should they accept your demands.

 

Say in 6 months time there is 50 uk charter boats fishing over there x 8 anglers = 400 anglers x 2 fish each (bag limit) a day =800 fish a day x 7 days = 5600 fish a week thats alot of fish

 

If it gets fished out even the local commercials will be out of a job

 

I think the consultation has been brought about so as to protect the fishery and peoples livelyhoods, thats uk charter boats, local commercial fishermen and local hotels ect.

 

I think it rather arrogant of you to expect local commercial fishermen to cave in to your demands, I would advise you treat this situation with more respect, a fair and reasonable attitude would be for you to comprimise yourselfs, it may be folly not to, you may do alot worst

 

regards stephen

a commercial fisherman

[Toerag]

I can understand Bailiwick of Guernsey commercial fishermen, or at least some of them, saying "they're our fish and you can't have them".

 

 

 

I think if you spoke to the commercial guys it's a case of 'they're our fish and you can't SELL them'. If you take them home for tea they can't really complain, if you sell them and take away their market and their livelihood, then I say that's fair. Hence the call for bag limits, it's the only realistic way to limit the practise of anglers selling fish from unlicensed boats.

[Puffin]

The LOCAL commercial sector have been fishing these waters long before the mainland boats turned up, why should they accept your demands.

 

Some of the local fishermen were in nappies when the angling tourism started in Alderney. No-one is making demands for anything other than to continue as per the last 20 years.

 

Say in 6 months time there is 50 uk charter boats fishing over there x 8 anglers = 400 anglers x 2 fish each (bag limit) a day =800 fish a day x 7 days = 5600 fish a week thats alot of fish

Yes, a lot of fish but completely unrealistic. There is only sufficient accommodation for maximum 120 anglers, assuming that none of the guest house beds have other guests in them so there is a natural limit on numbers.

 

 

 

I think the consultation has been brought about so as to protect the fishery and peoples livelyhoods, thats uk charter boats, local commercial fishermen and local hotels ect.

 

If you are right about the motivation they haven't thought it out very well as this will definitel;y be detrimental to the tourism sector in Alderney.

 

Bill. An Alderney Guest House proprietor.