Lobster Pot Update

[Salar]

Not everyone will be interested but I know one or two are - I just wanted to share my excitement: second lift of the pot and RESULT!!!! two legal lobsters. First drop was a disaster as I hadn't put enough weight in and it floated. Hauled back into the boat, the only extra weight I had was leads so I strapped a few of those in and lobbed it back over. The dumb thing was - I had forgotten to tie the door shut. So if I caught anything they just walked out again. So I was doubly pleased to see the two beauties lurking in the pot this morning. This could become a habit....

[Tog]

Did you not get any flack from the local potters?

I've had one give me a mouthful for 'being seen near to' one of his 'keel catchers' while out feathering from the boat. (Mudeford way).

[*Ant*]

So is this a new venture then Salar?

[Alan Taylor]

So lobster salad in August then we had scallops (eventually) last weekend I could get used to this life style.

 

Alan

[Norrie]

Well done Salar, I'm hoping to get a couple of pots down this season,as far as I know, in Scotland, you need a licence when you put more than 6 down. I lurvvvv lobster...

 

[ 03. June 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Norrie ]

[Salar]

toggle:

Did you not get any flack from the local potters?

Most charter boats and private boats drop a pot for hermit crabs round our way (Langstone/Hayling), so from the buoy I'm not sure who could spot the difference between a professionals string of pots and the odd single pot. I think professional potters get miffed if they think people are lifting their pots or laying a line across their string. As mine is a single pot (and you can legally use up to two before you have to register) hopefully there should be no problem. We shall see!

[Jim Roper]

Salar:

I think professional potters get miffed if they think people are lifting their pots

One local part-timer in Weymouth was suspected of pulling pots belonging to others. He got the message when he pulled his own one morning. In one there was a tortoise and in another was a seagull wearing a pullover!

 

[ 04. June 2004, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[Davy Holt]

Well done Salar

 

Sadly we dont have many Lobsters up at Lochaline but we do get loads of Dublin Bay Prawns. I normaly use a fleet of 10 creels in the Loch wth no problems

[H.A.]

Koof lobsters.

 

Smokin' fresh mackerel as we speak .......

[Leon Roskilly]

I thought that this article by Malcolm Gilbert would be of interest to those interested in this thread.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

 

SHELL FISH LICENCE/BAG LIMITS.

 

The Explanatory Leaflet for the Restrictive Shellfish Licensing Scheme from DEFRA refers to – “the introduction of measures to assist the conservation of shellfish”.

 

So it is clear that the entire initiative is ‘conservation’ based.

 

In early 2001, I first saw a ‘consultation’ document on shellfish licensing from the then MAFF.

 

It was supported by a CEFAS document –“The State of the Main Crustacean Stocks” which started with, “on traditional lobster grounds lobstermen are fishing more and more gear and are extending the length of the fishing season.”

 

The Consultation document discussed maximum numbers of pots and the linear mount of netting, suggesting that a condition of licence be a maximum of 1500 pots or 10000 metres of net and that these quantities could be subject to annual reduction.

 

In the case of pots the suggested reduction was 100 pots per year.

 

In addition to the suggested controls on commercial exploiters, controls were also suggested for ‘hobby fishers’.

 

In the event, shell fish licences have been introduced that effectively caps the number of boats by preventing new participants.

 

However, those with a licence (issued without charge) have had no restrictions on the amount of gear nor the quantity of shellfish they can take. Nor did the shell fish licensing scheme include controls on ‘hobby fishers’.

 

The Cornwall SFC, however, have drafted a bylaw application to limit hobby fishers to two shell fish a day.

 

At the last meeting I raised some fundamental questions on the rationale that lies behind restricting ‘hobby’ fishermen whist those targeting crustaceans commercially have no restrictions.

 

I start from the premise that shellfish, as with all fishery resources, belong to the people, “Our common heritage” is as they are described in the United Nations FAO agreement for Responsible Fisheries.

 

I made it clear that I was not advocating access to the resources without restriction as I do not believe that to be an option.

 

When mankind hunted with dug out canoes and a wooden spear, restrictions would not have been necessary because man was incapable of denting nature’s productivity.

 

We all know that today, man has every capability to annihilate nature’s productivity, so controls are required.

 

At the risk of being parochial, I have only found one hobby shell-fisherman in my home port of St Ives.

 

He tells me he caught 13 lobsters in 1990, and has witnessed a significant decline in his catches.

 

In 2001 he caught 5 lobsters, in 2002 he caught none and in 2003 he caught 1.

 

His small boat is without a hauler and his activities take place within easy reach of the harbour.

 

His gripe is that his right to the resource for his own personal consumption has been damaged by over exploitation of the commonly owned resource by unrestricted commercial boats!

 

Given the enormous increase in the number of pots, the introduction of parlour pots, the increased length of netting, vast increased efficiency of modern netting materials and modern hydraulics, is it seriously being suggested that the individual who chooses to go to the trouble to equip him/her self with a boat and gear to catch fish for their personal consumption are THE THREAT to stocks?

 

Within the Association of SFCs response to the Review of Enforcement, one of the main principals within Delivery Options is given as, “maximise social benefits and secure social equality of access to public resources.”

 

How does the proposed CSFC bylaw comply with that principle?

 

The Government’s Guideline on Byelaws contain a paragraph headed “Reasonableness and Discrimination” which discusses the potential for Byelaws being regarded as unreasonable because they are improperly discrimatory and inequitable in their operation as between different interests.

 

A document circulated by Cornwall SFC in 1983 about Byelaws draws attention to Byelaws which may be regarded as unreasonable are those which inter alia impinge inequitably on the common law rights to take fish from the sea and are partial and unequal in their operation as between different interests.

 

The document further states that Byelaws which openly discriminate between ‘full time’, ‘part time’ and ‘hobby’ fishers may give rise to considerable difficulties.

 

In the often vexed debate over bait digging, English Nature and other Environmental Orgs. are quite tolerant of digging for one’s own use BUT not so if the resources are used for commercial gain.

 

Imposing restrictions unilaterally on hobby fishers supports the idea that one owner of the resource, who impacts the most negatively upon that resource and uses the resource for commercial gain, should have unfettered access to it whilst another owner who wishes to access the resource for personal consumption with minimum impact, should be substantively restricted?

 

During a brief debate at Cornwall SFC, the CFO in defense of the proposed Bylaw extrapolated the 2 fish daily limit as equivalent to 14 a week, seemingly oblivious to the Association of SFCs makes considerable reference to the limitation to effort imposed on inshore boats by weather.

 

120-150 days a year are given as the number of likely workable days for those fishing full time.

 

I have heard no evidence to suggest that hobby fishers are less restricted by sea conditions than commercial fishermen.

 

Commercial fishermen who work 1200/1800 + pots may catch 100+ lobsters on a particular day but I doubt if anyone would consider extrapolating that to 700+ per week!

 

Cornwall SFCs contribution towards the Association’s response states under ‘Transparency’ (36), that whenever Bylaws are being considered, consultation both formally and informally takes place with the industry.

 

I am not aware of any consultation with those being affected by the 2 fish limit for hobby fishers.

 

Malcolm Gilbert