Government dumps its fishy problem overboard

[glennk]

Don't you believe it!

 

Plenty of emails, phone calls and meetings being arranged etc.,

 

 

As usual everything is done without the organisations members knowing about it. The NFSA website is dead as is my email in box. Just like the drafting of the RSA strategy itself everything is top secret and does not represent the wishes of the anglers on the beaches.

[stavey]

Hi Peter You are right in what you say I dont know what will happen in the new year only we are going to have to land all we catch in terms of discards is that bass as well I wondersteveHi staveyI ear that there catching quite few bass and codling near lancing from the beach waterside is it calledsteve

 

Hi steve

yeh for sure i have heard of a few more codling have indeed been taken off the beaches this year even around my neck of the woods, its part of the of the ten year cycle that comes around same as 87-97 and now 2007 they will all be caught in a 18 months and then it will be another 8 years of zilch, as regards cod off the beach, you know that steve your a fisherman, our only hope both (commercial and the rsa) is that the eu actually do something right for once and bring a measure in that works for the cod, lets not hold our breath though eh, cheers...........................

[ColinW]

If the reason for this U-turn is indeed the commercial fishermen crying that they can't avoid catching undersized fish (despite the fact that they continually tell us how skilled and selective they are) then I hope that this comes round to bite them in the backside, by the implementation of more severe restrictions on how, when and where they can fish. It can hardly be argued than banning fishing on huge areas of the sea will lead to more discards, so maybe that is the correct approach.

[barry luxton]

If the reason for this U-turn is indeed the commercial fishermen crying that they can't avoid catching undersized fish (despite the fact that they continually tell us how skilled and selective they are) then I hope that this comes round to bite them in the backside, by the implementation of more severe restrictions on how, when and where they can fish. It can hardly be argued than banning fishing on huge areas of the sea will lead to more discards, so maybe that is the correct approach.

The ministers decision included the inshore fishing fleet would have bourne the brunt of any increase bearing in mind the healthy fish stock at present. Don't think anyone told him that the bigger fish are now less on the ground, if they did he ain't listening. He won't restrict the local commercial as he want's to protect them, bless.

 

This is where he is mindfull of protecting a landing cost total of 7 mill as apposed to protecting and enhancing a bass stock that would be worth a heck of a lot more and be avalible to all. As someone has already stated, asset stripping. I thought in this holistic, transparent age, it was about making things better for all, can't see where that comes within the ministers thinking, ohh well.

 

Some other sfc person was speaking about the protection of another stock, she said that we must have a mls to enable the stock to breed. Funny that.

[bobdurauntti]

Apologies if I sound a bit on the thick side, but perhaps someone could explain to me a few points.

 

ICES and the EU were stating in 2004 that fishing mortality on bass was sustainable, and that successive years of recruitment has been good because the water temperature is increasing, therefore strong year classes continue to come through into the fishery, to the extent that the recruitment sustains the fishing and stock. Why do they then follow that up and say their advice is that fishing effort should not be increased, if everything is so great why limit it?

 

Secondly this advise comes from 2004, yet CEFAS fishing data on bass shows that fishing mortality doubled between 2000 and 2004, critically or should I say opportunely there is no information for 2005 and 2006 (this report was done in 2007). Are we to assume then that fishing has not increased at all since 2004, as per the ICES advise? Over the same time, landings of bass doubled (2000 to 2004), the spawning stock increased by about 25% and recruitment ranged between an increase of about 45% (2002) to a decrease of about 70% (2004) based on 2000 figures.

 

Worryingly I can’t find any landings figures for bass after 2004, just about the time that ICES stated that there should be no increase in effort, so is someone trying to hide any increase, if there is an increase.

 

What I would like to know is that if mortality is increasing greater than recruitment, how long before one passes the other going in a negative direction?

 

If a good climate drives good recruitment, how long will it take for recruitment to recover if we have a couple of poor (cold) winters?

 

If we have poor recruitment and are al least two years behind in terms of knowing what is happening, how quickly can any poor or desperate situation be reversed?

 

And finally……….

 

Just why do commercial fishermen prefer a boom or bust fishery, why do they dislike stability?

[barry luxton]

Apologies if I sound a bit on the thick side, but perhaps someone could explain to me a few points.

 

ICES and the EU were stating in 2004 that fishing mortality on bass was sustainable, and that successive years of recruitment has been good because the water temperature is increasing, therefore strong year classes continue to come through into the fishery, to the extent that the recruitment sustains the fishing and stock. Why do they then follow that up and say their advice is that fishing effort should not be increased, if everything is so great why limit it?

 

Secondly this advise comes from 2004, yet CEFAS fishing data on bass shows that fishing mortality doubled between 2000 and 2004, critically or should I say opportunely there is no information for 2005 and 2006 (this report was done in 2007). Are we to assume then that fishing has not increased at all since 2004, as per the ICES advise? Over the same time, landings of bass doubled (2000 to 2004), the spawning stock increased by about 25% and recruitment ranged between an increase of about 45% (2002) to a decrease of about 70% (2004) based on 2000 figures.

 

Worryingly I can’t find any landings figures for bass after 2004, just about the time that ICES stated that there should be no increase in effort, so is someone trying to hide any increase, if there is an increase.

 

What I would like to know is that if mortality is increasing greater than recruitment, how long before one passes the other going in a negative direction?

 

If a good climate drives good recruitment, how long will it take for recruitment to recover if we have a couple of poor (cold) winters?

 

If we have poor recruitment and are al least two years behind in terms of knowing what is happening, how quickly can any poor or desperate situation be reversed?

 

And finally……….

 

Just why do commercial fishermen prefer a boom or bust fishery, why do they dislike stability?

 

You don't sound thick at all to me Bob, feet very much planted on the ground. If there are no figures to hand from 04 onwards, have the scientists and also defra and the blo.....dy ministers based recommendation and decision on old stats that to date have been superseaded. If that was the case then surly any decision must be based on the precautionary approach next. That is what the likes of them keep spouting on about in any event. So the lodgical answer is that there must have been current figures to hand for the minister to come to the decision that he did. Wasn't there?

[steve good]

You don't sound thick at all to me Bob, feet very much planted on the ground. If there are no figures to hand from 04 onwards, have the scientists and also defra and the blo.....dy ministers based recommendation and decision on old stats that to date have been superseaded. If that was the case then surly any decision must be based on the precautionary approach next. That is what the likes of them keep spouting on about in any event. So the lodgical answer is that there must have been current figures to hand for the minister to come to the decision that he did. Wasn't there?

 

QUOTE/ So the lodgical answer is that there must have been current figures to hand for the minister to come to the decision that he did.

 

Yes there was see my discards thread

 

steve

[barry luxton]

QUOTE/ So the lodgical answer is that there must have been current figures to hand for the minister to come to the decision that he did.

 

Yes there was see my discards thread

 

steve

 

Sorry, didn't realise with todays electronic gadgets the commercial sector couldn't avoid massivly increasing discards. That only applys to the trawling sector doesn't it.

 

Tried to open your pdf file but it keeps timing out. From the gist of the other posts, 90% is very small fish in any event?

Edited October 31, 2007 by barry luxton

[steve good]

For God’s sake Steve, you seem to making an argument for the benefits of catching and marketing undersized fish.

 

Let’s start from basics, eh?

 

Even a 14 year old, studying science in the National Curriculum, knows that a population, in the wild, cannot be sustained if a species is not allowed to reproduce naturally.

 

Remove the animals or plants before they are mature and capable of reproducing and you are creating losers in the survival stakes.

 

Catch too many of a species in one place and they become fewer and their survival is threatened. Continue to remove even the pre-breeders and there is one inevitable conclusion.

 

Now, any sensible, long-term industry builds a foundation from a good business plan; they don’t simply rely on Governments to create all the parameters they work by.

The fishing industry has no sustainable business plan; it is, for the vast proportion of its practices, ASSET STRIPPING …

no more, no less and without a care in the world.

 

The poor fishermen, merchants and processors are just out to make a living, eh?

Well, me matey, for how much longer???

 

Advance technology (as it always will), destroy the habitats where fish grow and feed with your efficient catching methods and equipment, use diamond meshes with no relationship to ‘real mesh size’ which allows small fish to escape, hammer every piece of ground in every area, (Grand Banks stylee, eh?) …… and then turn around when there are no fish left and say Governments should have done something about it when they could.

 

Sleep soundly my commercial bretheren.

 

Hi H.A.

 

QUOTE/ For God’s sake Steve, you seem to making an argument for the benefits of catching and marketing undersized fish.

 

No not at all it is only your mind that has wrongfully reach that concludion.

 

The problem is that anglers are to tunnell vision to set in their veiws and beliefs and do not or want to see the woods from the trees, I believe beach anglers have this problem more than most, they blame what they see from the beach there are other forces at play which they cannot see or except.

 

Wether you like it or not or except that any fishery is and will be only as good as its management allowes it to be, commercial fishermen will for the most part fish in accordance with management policy. This goverment does not manage our fisheries Brussel does our goverment only oversee Brussels management polcies, uk fishermen have no say in the matter. Under EU fisheries polies the UK fishing industy has been destroyed

 

The other member states have most of the quotas and trawl the UK 6-12 zone relentlessly if anglers want better fishing you all need to focus your attendions on the main driving force of fisheries management and polcies thats Brussels not London, until such times as your tunnel vision lasts you will only be weeing in the wind

 

steve

[bobdurauntti]

QUOTE/ So the lodgical answer is that there must have been current figures to hand for the minister to come to the decision that he did.

 

Yes there was see my discards thread

 

steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

I have read your post and the report, and again no disrespect but........................

 

The majority of the data originates where exactly?

 

Looking at the data it seems to be a cooperative effort between CEFAS and local commercial fishermen and processors, the data is soo good that for Scarborough there are no length data and everything is by weight, what sort of scientists are we employing here that to organise an assessment of size of bass, they don't take size measurements. So if it wasn't scientifiacally carried out and it was measurements from the fishermen themsleves who of course don't have a vested interest and are completely impartial!!!! What can we assume from the value of this report

 

Sorry but I guess when you could be looking at a shortfall for a time and you have an opportunity to counter that, if left alone you will take advantage, its the same as cooking the books. It seems to me that there is a liberal sprinkling of sciense fact and a whole bag full of sciense fiction. The report is not worth the tiolet paper it should be written on.

 

To base a whole argument against conservation of a stock as CEFAS have done on one type of fishing shows how much they are in cohoots with the fishermen, where are the measurements on gill netting and rod and line caught fish.

 

I suppose if we are honest, it hasn't made a big difference, because BASS and the others wanted 45cm to let bass spawn, at 40cm they still wouldn't have spawned so staying at 36 doesn't make any difference, its just been a long drawn out employnment exercise for DEFRA personnal.