dartangler

This is well off topic now! Indeed it was never on topic, as there is still not to my best knowledge as a Committee Member, any attempt to reintroduce the subject to Devon SFC. The original article stemmed from an edited version of the Devon SFC Chairman's personal opinion on a possible way forward in dealing with an obvious problem of illegal fishing. Nevertheless there has been some interesting debate once again in this Forum. Its a good few years now since the Government introduced the Licensing Scheme and Yes there were many beneficiaries at the time including RSA Charter Skippers. However any new entrant to the commercial fleet now will pay a high price to get a licence, if they can find one to fit their vessel! We should not lose sight of the fact that any new acquistion or indeed aggregation of smaller licences to fit a new vessel will attract an immediate 10% penalty loss, previously of VCU's now of Kw and Tonnage. By that means the size of the British Commercial Fishing Fleet is constantly being reduced. In time this means the value of the remaining licences could increase. A gamble as the Government could change the system at any time, with or without compensation? Toerag, look forward to meeting with you and exchanging views, when our new Cat is finally finished and my partners and I get over to Guernsey.

Barry/Leon Its late. I was out at 5am this morning and will be tomorrow, so excuse the brief reply. Leon , neither you, Chris V or myself are a million miles apart on this subject, but time does not permit the informed response that would take this issue further here. My personal opinion on bag limitation on RSA's should be clear from the first post. There are of course better times and places for us to be making our contribution and I know we all will continue to do so! Barry, sorry, but from Kent you are a long way from the Devon problems and seem ill-informed, although I personally welcome your letter to the SFC, which should open some interesting debate. This is not an issue about charter boats or the many genuine RSA's that use them. I count many local skippers as my friends! I believe you normally fish with Simon Pedley when down here. He is a very good and well respected skipper. However there are quite a few private craft operating out of the ports you mention, that also frequent the channel wrecks, with some known to me as small as 23' or less going as far as the Channel Isles. Some of these are part of the problem. I will not waste time discussing the commercial quotas on pollack and cod in the commercial/RSA debate. Today my partners and I visited a prolific mark off Dartmouth. We had to fulfil a customer's order for 30 bass and some mackerel, which we caught very quickly, returning a number of undersize fish as well. We then left that mark and spent the rest of the day as pleasure anglers exploring different areas some miles away, catching a number of species returning some and keeping a few for our personal consumption and that of our families. It was of no suprise to see several other boats on the bass mark, including one charter boat. Most of those boats were undoubtably genuine RSA's and I am sure they had a good time. Present though were at least 3 boats that have been there and on other similar marks on many occasions in the last few days/weeks/ months and even previous years. Perhaps you can explain what they are doing with the copious quantities of bass they catch and do not return? Their identities are known to the authorities and at some stage, once the evidence is accrued, if possible, I would hope to see a prosecution! Needless to say, I recognise this impact on the fish stocks as probably minimal in relation to commercial pressure and I am a strong campaigner against the comparatively recent pair trawling for the prespawning shoals of bass in the Channel, that I regard as one of the greatest dangers to future sustainabilty. However it is an issue that divides both the commercial and RSA sector and even brings about division within the RSA sector itself. It requires solution. Goodnight

H.A. I know how you feel! Hang in there though! I have read with concern the comments on this and other sites since Leon saw fit to publish the details of what was an edited newspaper version of Chris Venmore's views. I note Leon that you have since used this as an opportunity to elsewhere air your own personal views on the related subjects! To Barry, I say that as a Member of Devon SFC, as a lifelong RSA and game angler, as a conservationist and in recent months as an active commercial, having invested heavily to purchase with my partners both a suitable vessel and a hugely expensive license to permit me to lawfully sell fish if I want, I will note with interest what transpires from the letter to Devon SFC that you have openly published! At this stage, I would like to try in this one forum, where I think there is generally a modicum of common sense, to set straight a few issues that have been misrepresented in some of the posts here and elsewhere. Firstly I would say to Glenn , Devon SFC, has not in my opinion, I only joined them last year, been biased in favour of commercials or indeed any other faction. I suggest that you look at the terms of reference for appointees for guidance on this and impartiality. In point of fact on Devon SFC, many of the commercial representatives and indeed several of the Council representatives are active RSA's and any issue that has affected RSA's has been very fairly treated in my limited experience. Secondly the issue of Bag Limits (raised by DEFRA) was discussed in Committee some months ago and dismissed! Members present, including David Rowe from the NFSA, and I suggested it should only be looked at as a possible part of an overall package of measures affecting all sectors. Thirdly, Chris Venmore, who has unfairly received a great deal of unwarranted criticism across a number of sites, is an outstanding Chairman of the SFC. I know him well personally and can state with a great deal of confidence that he is a true friend of all genuine RSA's and works tirelessly to see that in his area they get the best possible deal within the confines of current inadequate legislation and funding. Fourthly, to those that may doubt it, there is a huge problem in this area with alleged RSA's illegally selling their catch, not just bass, but pollack, cod and other species that are inevitably caught when wreck fishing and cannot readily be returned to the sea. In the case of bass (not necessarily those caught on the offshore wrecks, that do blow) the issue is clearly one of money. Boating is an expensive business and the temptation is always there to try to offset this. I make no apology for currently fishing for bass for profit myself; I am expensively licensed to do so and for one of my partners this is a major source of his income! At the current time, there appears a locally good stock of bass of many different sizes, dependent on the marks I fish. This week I have concentrated on the smaller bass, which are the ones my buyers most request. Many of the marks are well known and I am pleased to fish them in company with other boats of all types. It is good to see locals and visitors, particularly the young children catching fish and enjoying the sport. However perhaps somebody can explain to me why it is when I arrive at marks, often before dawn, there are the same unregistered boats already there and they are there day after long day, catching bass in huge numbers with great regularity! They are not returning them to the sea! I will not give you the gory details of our recent catches at these marks , but they are substantial, even though today for instance we returned over 30 of the smaller undersize fish and any that neared that mark. We set our own personal minimum size level above the statutory minimum size. That should give some indication of the level of catch of these alleged RSA’s fishing alongside us, who don’t seem to be putting many back! Some of these individuals are well known to me, some are well known in the angling world, as Members of Sea Angling Clubs, where they win awards for their angling efforts. Come on, get real, we all know what they are doing! I am aware that Chris has received numerous complaints about illegal fishing from both the commercial sector, who see their livelihood threatened by those who undermine the market and the genuine RSA world, who see the errant individuals undermining the RSA status. I know and share with him the deficiencies of the current legislative system. My background is as a senior police officer. I have discussed with Chris and the Devon Chief Fisheries Officer, what can be done to help solve this problem, in which some of the problems stem from funding issues, others from the various jurisdictions of the various bodies involved in policing the issue, ranging from the SFC, EA and of course the MFA, who have a key role in enforcing the Buyers and Sellers legislation. Given my past experience, I am only too aware of the standard of proof required for successful prosecution, and both DSFC and the MFA have my deepest sympathy for being inadequately equipped both in resources and more importantly in legislative tools to perform their statutory duties. There are real issues here for DEFRA and the politicians and I hope you have all made appropriate submissions in respect of the possible forthcoming Marine Bill. In this particular case, Chris Venmore, faced with mounting pressure for the Devon SFC to do something, has I believe expressed his personal opinion on the need for a byelaw tool to assist the Devon SFC Officers to at least try more effectively to police the problem. It is not, to my personal knowledge, yet again an agenda item for the Devon SFC, as a whole, to consider anew. I personally doubt that, if it did appear again, it would receive anything other than the response it received last time. But that is no reason at all for genuine anglers to start criticising Chris for his opinion, he merely exposes an ongoing problem. Personally I will be doing my best to encourage both the SFC and MFA to adopt a more proactive preventive stance, such as the recent local checks on both RSA's and commercial sector in respect of undersize fish, together with MFA checks on buyers. At the same time I believe that a local prosecution is well overdue on illegal RSA sales and purchase and will be encouraging them in that direction. These are crucial times for a sustainable fishery for future generations of both anglers and commercial fishermen to enjoy. I would suggest to all that rather than continuing to foster ill- informed comments that seem to want to try to divide both factions, we should all be working more closely together to try to influence both DEFRA and the politicians. Pressure on my personal time, means that I will not be entering into debate on this subject within this forum, albeit I will be active on the coal face. My apologies in advance to anyone who might wish me to do so!

I finally got a belated response from Bradshaw MP. His first, prepared no doubt by some minion in DEFRA, was merely a standard response that I am sure was trotted out to the many disgruntled anglers who wrote following the minimum landing size debacle. This of course did not even attempt to answer the questions I had posed. According I resubmitted my initial letter, via my local MP, to try to ensure that I got a more informed response from the then Minister. The response, signed by Bradshaw, is quite disgraceful and shows that he and DEFRA are quite incapable of understanding the complex issues put to them. On the question relating to the impact on salmonids by the introduction of salmon nursery areas the response verbatim is as follows:- “ Mr …… expresses concern about the possible impacts of bass measures, past and future, on stocks of salmon and trout. Scientific advice suggests that bass nets should have no impact on salmon and sea trout smolts” That is the only reference to the question I had posed about bass nursery areas and clearly does not provide any answer at all! Why there is any reference to bass nets ( unmentioned in my letter) defeats me and shows that either my letter had not been read or that DEFRA and their scientists have no answer to the posed question on the impact of nursery areas ! Forum Members might be interested in another aspect of Mr Bradshaw’s response. On the question of pair trawling, where I had suggested a total ban on pair trawling and a closed season to protect spawning stocks, he quite rightly states “To take measures that would extend across the English Channel to encompass Freench and other EU Member States would require action from the Commission and to date there has been little interest in extending or replicating the measures I took to restrict pair trawling in the South West to reduce cetacean bycatch. As I am sure Mr ….. is aware scientific advice from ICES, which informs the actions taken by the Commission, indicates that bass stocks are currently being fished sustainably” So that’s OK then! There is no problem with bass stocks , my commercial U 10 m quota of 5 tonnes per week is secure! Incidentally from the tone of his letter, “….. ( Proposals for minimum landing size) .. are the first in a wider package of measures for anglers, including other measures on bass”. We must continue to watch that space for bag limitation and rod licence fees. I note Bradshaw has now moved on to Health ( I am sure the remaining fish in our seas and rivers would say God help the patients) and we will have to see what line the new Minister takes. I find this constant changing of Ministers a recipe for inertia, as invariably it takes them some time to come up to speed on the issues. At the same time the power and influence of the largely unaccountable civil servants in DEFRA, who do sometimes spend a little more time with one Department, increases and given their track record to date the prospects are bleak!

Hi Steve, Thanks for a well considered response! I have been a very active campaigner for salmon and sea trout conservation for many years and certainly would not solely blame bass predation on smolts for the current state of salmonid stocks! As I well recognise there are many problems affecting salmonid fisheries and this of course preceded the nursery area status on my local River Dart. Incidentally independent research conducted by the Westcountry Rivers Trust on the Dart compared with some other SW Rivers showed that for some as yet unaccountable reason the rate of decline here, based on EA juvenile surveys, was higher than on the other rivers - additional endocrine disruption factor? Until I spoke to Paul Knight at S&TA recently I had not given the bass subject a passing thought. However now the issue has been raised it does pose some difficult questions! Just how much predation by bass within estuaries does actually occur? What impact have the bass nursery areas had since their introduction? What would be the consequences of a size increase? We have always had some good sized bass in the estuary anyway! As nobody really fishes for them within the estuary nowadays we have no real knowledge of just how much the stock has increased - nor do we know how the size differentation has altered. Our anecdotal experience based on the inadvertant ctaches whilst sea trout fishing, together with some limited information from shore anglers, is that there does appear an increase in both numbers and size. If correct, then presumably this may impact on the predation rate on smolts. As our salmonid stocks are endangered then it is important to consider all the various elements that may be compounding the problems. Is bass one of these? I fully realise this is a difficult subject for BASS for whom I have a great deal of respect, albeit there are areas of the Bass Management Plan with which I do not fully concur. I personally would like to see all species of fish flourishing and with it the sport of angling in all its guises. I would also like the commercial sector to thrive as well! I also firmly believe that all sectors have to work together to solve the many problems we all face. However this subject will not go away and has to be addressed. It certainly puts me in a dilemma and I have no answers personally! I await a response from the Minister, but am not holding my breath. I am happy to communicate with BASS at any stage. It is many years since I last fished with John Leballeur! My best regards, David

Hi All, Thanks to those that responded - some interesting comments! Been too busy fishing to reply earlier - Conservation Politics can take second place! Last nocturnal sortie to Totnes Weir in difficult conditions - swirling mist and dropping temperatures- did result in success. Landed one sea trout, but lost two with those rubber hooks again! Pleased to see my guest caught his first sea trout ( 4lb 13oz) for a few years. However the really interesting thing, other than the sight of a metre long lamprey on the Weir face and other than having to chase a seal out of the pool before we started to fish, was that all rods on the night that I spoke to had just caught at least one bass - largest reported 1lb 8oz. Having fished the Dart for 25 years or more this really is an unusually high number of bass and early stage of the season for this to occur! I did not really expect any answer to the bass v sea trout/salmon debate and my personal dilemma as a game fisherman Chairman, formerly Secretary of the local Dart Angling Association together with being a Member of Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, a recreational sea angler and shortly to be a commercial fisherman, as part owner of a soon to be launched 9.95M Cheetah Cat that will be rod and line fishing for bass for part of the year, continues! To answer just a few of your comments:- Colin W - thanks for correcting the date to 1990. Unfortunately this adds to the dilemma as the recorded declines did not really get a mention until the 90's with the rate of decline escalating from around 1995 onwards. We have no real management information systems on the Dart and the only real record is based on the recorded rod and net catches. These were around 5000 for salmon in 1900. Had declined to around 2000 in the early 80s and had fallen to around 500 by 2000, despite increasingly progressive voluntary and mandatory catch restrictions introduced incrementally through the 90's. We finally managed to negotiate a partial 10 net buy-out in 2004 and work with the remaining 3 nets towards future sustainability? Wurzel- you old rogue - the Dart is fly only for sea trout and how did you manage to get onto our private fishery at Totnes Weir? Please send any fine money to me! The Bacon factory is long closed, but the leat is still open, even if the EA could not tell me what the abstraction licence conditions were, when I asked them a couple of weeks ago as part of ongoing debate into their "Restoring Sustainable Abstraction" programme! Worryingly the Weir face is now almost dry, and it is only May! We know what research into salmon migration states - if they are prevented from entering the river by factors such as man made barriers or low flow - up to 50% may return to sea and are unlikely to return to spawn! I disagee with you and personally believe that the bass nursery areas here in the South West have done a great deal to restore the bass stocks. The Dart appears full of bass. I fished Salcombe Estuary for giltheads the other day and was plagued by bass to 40cm. Ryford Andy I take your point about other issues and will be continuing my ongoing fight against over abstraction, habitat degradation and pollution, particularly endocrine disruption from STW discharges - that from Buckfast STW on the Dart containing OP and SP waste from the commercial effluent from a mill scouring sheep fleeces. Submissions I made in to the Minister in 1995 on this subject and about the combined impact of STW components remain unresolved to this date. I also take the point about monofilament netting, whilst recognising the good work that the SFC has already done by using the S&FF Act to limit fixed engine nets along much of the Devon coastline. However please do not lose sight of the fact that increased bass numbers in the estuary may just be another factor in salmonid decline. Leon I am disappointed by your comment "Maybe we shouldn't be worrying too much about the smolts" . Whilst I note you relate this to the research based projection on bass stocks, the declines in salmonids are already here and also require actions now! I personally do not know what the impact on salmonids by the introduction of bass nursery areas has been. Nor can I speculate too much on what will happen if bass stocks and or size limits are increased. However I do believe, given the fact that the Dart and other SW Rivers arise in the Dartmoor SAC, where salmon and their routes to the protected SAC area have protected status, that proper consideration should be given to this potential problem. If necessary the precautionary principle should apply until we know for certain! I have therefore written to Ben Bradshaw on the subject. Perhaps he and his "luminaries" in DEFRA and CEFAS might be able to shed some light on the subject? I know that this may have an impact on the BASS Management Strategy, currently it does not figure in the document. However it should in my opinion form part of any RIA, if legislation is to be introduced on the back of that document. Best Regards, David PS Hot off the press- after a phone call I have just received whilst typing this - from a fellow DAA Member if anyone could tell me the approx weight of a well conditioned 38" sea trout released last night along with others estimated at 10 and 9lb I would be obliged! Did my pal catch the one I lost - Lucky b..... !!!? I shall be returning tonight even more " green" than usual.

Here is one for you all to argue about with the conservation of bass a hot current topic! I was informed by Paul Knight of the S&TA recently, that a number of bass caught in the Solway Firth were, when gutted, found to contain salmon & sea trout smolts! I suspect that in the open sea that is a fact of nature. However my local 9 mile long estuary, the Dart, was one of many designated a bass nursery area in I think 1982! Since when, other than some limited illegal exploitation, the bass have been thriving without exploitation ( Only to be slaughtered by the pair trawling effort - later in life, but thats another story). Prior to this there existed in this and many other South West Estuaries a good fishery for bass of mixed sizes! My river in common with many others has suffered a decline in salmon numbers and more recently sea trout. On a date basis, this decline would seem to co-incide with the introduction of the nursery zone! Up to now we have blamed many other factors such as cormorants,gooseanders that also appeared here in 1982, seals that some active conservationists appear to think should be saved as abandoned pups elsewhere along the coast and later reintroduced in the Dart and of course pollution and abstraction. Not for one moment had I, or others on the river, given a thought to the possible impact of an enhanced bass population. As a keen game angler and bass fisherman I am now in a dilemma about this. I would welcome your views, but on a sea fishing forum might possibly anticipate the response! I am aware from Paul of tagged smolts in America being found in the stomach of striped bass, but am unaware of any research into this matter in the UK. Out of interest the catch return last night for 10 Members of our Angling Association fishing Totnes Weir Pool at the head of the tide, with good number of salmon and sea trout smolts present was 1 sea trout, landed together with 5 bass to 1lb! I might add that as well as catching and returning the only sea trout and one of the bass, I also prematurely released the largest Dart sea trout I have ever hooked and I have been fortunate enough to land 6 over 10lb in the past!

Hi Norm, I understand Mike wore out the bleep button editing the video! Must get to see the unedited version! Is it right that he made you eat it rather than let you take it home this time! I will have to console myself with the first sea trout of the season last night (3lb), Still it will eat well - as nice as turbot? Best regards, David

Hi Barry - thanks for welcome! 1. The Marine Bill - I see many of the proposals ( subject to adequate funding - not just additional taxation on RSA and Commercials) such as the establishment of MMO's, greater emphasis on conservation, such as MPZ's, and some revised legislative changes such as those strengthening the bye-law capability of SFC's , as being of benefit in the long term. However concentrating here on the proposals relating to RSA's such as those in Para 7.113 - all would be beneficial - but all will cost huge sums! I would love to see artificial reefs to protect/ enhance some areas off my South Devon coast, which have been badly damaged over the years by trawling effort. But how much would just one of those cost? I really cannot see the income from an RSA charging/licence scheme alone providing adequate funding! My great fear, which I share with many others, is that we will all get the charges, but no real RSA improvements! I think the points made by the Countryside Alliance on the subject of licences very relevant. My personal opinion, just as in the game fishing world, where I have until recently been more active, including such matters as compensating commercial netsmen not to fish, is that I would be prepared to contribute more, but only provided other sectors, including Government and the public as a whole put up a realistic share. We are all beneficiaries of an improved environment. 2. The alleged South West RSA Rep, who spoke at the DEFRA/NFFO Meeting, has been identified in other sites/postings, but to date I am unaware if he has made any public explanation of his input, authorised or not at that Meeting. My own view is that his comments will not have affected the outcome one iota, other than perhaps demonstrating to the Minister yet again how disunited is the RSA lobby. The NFFO input on its own left the Minister with little choice, but to take time out to reconsider the alleged new evidence. On the subject of unity I have taken the time to speak personally to both David Rowe of the NFSA and to Leon of SACN on the subject. They know my views. With all that is currently on the agenda in the Fisheries world, an agenda in which the role and status of RSA's has been enhanced due to the efforts of individuals such as them and others in the NFSA, SACN , BASS and others too numerous to name, if ever there was a time for unity - then this is it! I might add that in my humble opinion then that unity should be shared with commercials as far as possible, for there are indeed many areas when we can work together towards improvements that would benefit us all. 3. Have I signed the bass petition - No! I wrote to the Minister personally following the recent debacle. My letter concentrated on other bass conservation issues, which in my opinion are far more serious than size limitation, such as the continued obscene pair trawling for mature pre-spawning bass. In my opinion the Minister needs to do more, both at home and within the EU on this subject, which is causing immense harm to the stocks, despite the limited efforts to control this aspect to date. ( reported - 28 tonne in one 2 hour trawl by the Guernsey pair in February - quite legally as things stand!) I have fished for bass for a good many decades. I saw a healthy mixed size stock get decimated with increased restaurant demand, the advent of monofilament nets and a degree of increased angling pressure. The sacrifices that were made by both RSA's and commercials in giving up many of our South Coast estuaries, as nursery areas, was slowly beginning to pay off and stocks of mixed size fish were beginning to recover quite well. Then unfortunately we saw the skilled and technologically efficient pair trawlers discover the locations of the winter spawning bass shoals and the stocks, particularly of the larger mature bass, plummeted once again. The causal link is very clear to see from the timing. Solve this problem and the need for size limitation, bag limitation and other issues that cause so much controversy between and within RSA's and commercials, may well disappear if the breeding stocks could be left alone to do what comes naturally! My personal views entirely - David

How very disappointing that a subject of such major importance is generating such little comment from the forum! Is it that the subject is too long or complex? I note there have only been some 466 views to date. Given that, if the White Paper finds it way to the statute books, there will be tremendous impact on the marine environment, including some major implications for both RSA's and commercials, some welcome, some possibly not, I would have hoped to see more views. My major concern, as a recent SFC Member, is in regard to the funding of the many proposals in the Paper. I sense a huge shortfall unless DEFRA can attract more funds from central government. Their track record, both in attracting their share of the Government Purse and in funding fisheries issues generally has not been too good to date. We have recently, as a result of EU fines in respect of farm payments, seen DEFRA claw back substantial sums from the Environment Agency budget, which has a statutory duty to maintain improve and develop fisheries and is already perceived by many, certainly here in the South West, as failing in that duty. We can now expect further reductions in their funding to affect their performance even more. Is that to be the case for sea fisheries? The Paper gives vastly more duties and responsibilities to SFC's. My impression, certainly given the amount of illegal fishing activity , both RSA and commercial, that takes place now, is that they already struggle to cope with the existing plethora of legislation and are fairly poorly funded. The Paper proposes that, as now, the new SFC's will be funded by precept on Local Authorities, who will have some reduction in their allocated Committee Membership, but importantly will be the only Members entitled to vote on funding issues. In other words that could entirely politicise the Committee! After 30 years as a police officer, I know that enforcement costs dearly! Will the funds be forthcoming to permit the new SFC's to operate effectively? I have my doubts! I noted earlier comment about the welcome intentions for the development of RSA facilities, along with the proposal for rod licence. I noted too, the debate about income/expenditure. What they imply will be done to improve the lot of the RSA, whilst commendable, will certainly cost a lot - or are we just to see a few token projects as gestures? Will income match required expenditure? Somehow I doubt this unless RSA's are to pay a fortune for their licence! I note, as an RSA and Commercial, just how the Paper fudges the question of funding in respect of commercials! We have some time yet to respond to this Paper and there are other matters more pressing, such as the Fisheries 2027 Vision consultation, closely linked to the White Paper. I just hope we do not lose sight of this important issue in this forum.