seaside

More than 500,000,000 white fish / yr in the North Sea and West of Scotland fisheries may have a slightly different opinion.

They are already working on it - Squid The demand for Scottish "calamari" is growing in Europe, but little is known about the stock dynamics, see http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=15&id=47652007 Why is demand growing in Europe for a product that really doesn't exist yet ? Perhaps it's because their stocks are just about exhausted. Perhaps it's because Scotland is willing manage fisheries without worrying about discards ? The following are quotes from people who thought to write to the paper : First the herring, then the cod, then the monkfish, how long will it take to fish out the squid? We've managed to wipe out every other viable fishery. Now it's the turn of the squid. Let 'em have it boys!!! We are a sad and desperate species. Squid supper anybody? Plnety salt n vinegar for me please and a wee drop broon sauce!

NFFO are getting in a bit of a tizz over the criteria that will be used to select two new appointees to the Seafish Board which they say have been deliberately set to leave the mainstream English, Welsh and Northern Irish catching sectors without a voice. They have bitterly condemned the criteria which specifically require “knowledge, understanding and expertise in the catching sector and its impact in Scotland.” They suggest “The intention is to strengthen the already strong Scottish voice on the Seafish Board, whilst leaving the mainstream catching sector south of the border without a voice. It is an affront to natural justice and any sense of fairness or balance”, said NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas. IMHO - Not quite as big an affront to natural justice, fairness or balance as the lack of meaningful inclusion of RSA bodies, especially in Scotland, in matters which impact their sport. BTW - If they are searching for candidates with a knowledge of the impact of the catching sector, I suggest they just wander along the coastline - there'll be plenty of anglers there with that knowledge.

Stavey - stock decline is the real issue - not too long ago there were around 30 species regularly taken around Scotland by either recreational or commercial fishermen, now both groups are realistically limited to about 4 or 5 species. Skates, rays, spurdogs, plaice, and others have all pretty much disappeared from the coastlines of Scotland. How that stock decline has come around is the source of constant debate with 'global warming' being the latest in a long line of pee poor reasons, but the reality is poor resource management. It really doesn't matter what the cause is, if you are taking out more than what is being put back, you have a declining resource and even now when the lack of resources is fully appreciated (even if claimed not to be fully understood) they continue to be poorly managed - over 500,000,000 fish being discarded annually in the North Sea and west coast of Scotland - a big majority of which are haddock and whiting. The Scottish Executive & SEERAD are responsible for their share, they need to introduce and implement real fishery conservation measures before all that is left are the deepwater and inshore prawn stocks.

I know Denis and yourself put a lot into determining who you should ask, and I'm pleased for both of you and SOS that you managed to 'land' Monty. Perhaps the Scottish politicians and SEERAD would like to explain to him why they make so little proactive effort to protect species in Scottish waters.

I can't speak for what Challenge has seen or not seen, and I would never call anyone a liar unless I could absolutely prove it. What I would say is that from those photos that were featured earlier on, he has certainly seen more double figure cod on one trip than has been seen by shore fishermen in the Clyde for probably a decade or more. Mr Locker may not have been too chuffed, but the remarks up here would get me immediately banned for life from this site. As for your statement regarding the veracity of commercial fishermen, I don't think I could have expected to put that on this forum, and walk away unscathed The data I use is not my own opinion but that which is gathered by a Scottish observer programme where landings and discard data are collected by scientific observers on board commercial fishing vessels. These operate in the Clyde, North Sea and West Coast fisheries. The Scottish Fishermans Federation CEO has said "...... dramatic reductions in the last five years has seen the fleet match the sustainable catch opportunity, which has enabled us to achieve the sustainable harvesting of this fine natural resource." This is good for stocks and recognises the issues of the past, though it does create many 'fat cat' issues you alluded to. But the healthy state of these fisheries masks the parlous state of inshore fisheries, and who is at fault for these diminished stocks is pretty much immaterial to me. What is far more important is getting stocks to recover and improving the fisheries for the benefit of both inshore commercial and recreational fishermen. That will require legislation and is therefore the biggest weakness in the whole situation, if politicians were marine life - they'd be jellyfish.

Cod - no-one talks about catching other than juvenile cod on the majority of the west coast. There's not even a great deal of them around on the east coast either. Bertie Armstrong in the lead up to the TACS / quota negotiations this year was really annoyed, he thought all the talk of cod was diluting their efforts as no-one in the Scottish inshore fleet deliberately fishes for cod anymore - they just aren't there. The Clyde and many other areas on the west coast used to support a superb commercial and recreational fishery - cod, haddock, whiting, skate, rays, halibut, mackerel, plaice, dogfish, spurdog, herring, salmon, sea-trout .......... just about any fish that swam. You think the total lack of most of these is a temporary blip - get real - the current leader of the Clyde Fishermens Assoc on the radio just the other day called the total lack of meaningful fish stocks a disgusting situation -- it didn't come about because of the charter vessels, it came about because the area was commercially overfished, not my words, but those of a previous leader of the Clyde Fishermens Assoc. But the Clyde prawn trawlers continue to shovel 10+ million juvenile fish back overboard every year; vessels working all Scottish waters shovel back 100s of millions of fish -- 1000s of charter boats would be hard put to do that. That said, my issue is not with the commercial fishermen, it's with the Governments - they should stop fit-farting around and introduce the necessary legislative framework to address fish stock issues, some of which may be long term, others more immediate. An immediate win would be to enforce methods which would minimise discard levels in fisheries, quite simple in some, more difficult in others and very difficult in a select few. They should also outlaw all fisheries targeting gravid fish or those which take place on breeding/spawning grounds. These would not significantly impact revenue and would put millions of fish back into circulation.

BC - diversification has been very much the key and the fleet has restructured accordingly. Back in 1990 there were 2300 vessels split 60/40 over 10mtr/under 10mtr now there are 2350 vessels split 30/70. Prawn is the big growth area; the pelagic fleet still knocks out as much tonnage as it has on average for the last several decades, albeit there are now only around 30 vessels exploiting the fishery; the inshore fishery is the big loser - no surprises there, lack of stock affects the inshore commercial fleet just as much as it does RSA. Our issues are not with the commercial fleet, that is on record in parliamentary minutes and the various meetings we have attended, they are with the Scottish Executive, as it is responsible for determining the framework necessary to ensure suitable fisheries for both RSA and commercial fishermen. They have failed in that. Commercial bodies are addressing that from their standpoint and we are addressing it from ours - one thing we both know is that it is only the Executive which can make the necessary legislative changes and petty arguments between ourselves will change nothing and only divert attention.

Pretty shi**y comment Wurzel given that over 50 of them in the Clyde area alone have gone out of business due to the lack of stocks through commercial overfishing -- a cause that has been publicly recognised by the local commercial organisations. This has resulted in millions of pounds being lost to several west coast local economies and has badly impacted many businesses which existed to service sea anglers and their families. You, and all those who favour commercial interests on this forum, are always carping on about how anglers don't understand what they are talking about. Well you've really shown your true understanding of issues making statements like that. But I must thank you for that very cheap shot, as it has at least resulted in me getting quite a few emails referencing it (as well as others by some of your soulmates) and providing me with input.

In May, the third Scottish parliamentary and local council elections will take place. The Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers (SFSA) feels that the interests of Scottish sea anglers have historically been neglected by the Executive and due to their poor stock management, the numbers and variety of fish being caught are decreasing rapidly. Our individual angling experiences are constantly deteriorating; entry levels for many competitions are falling, charter boats are finding it harder to make a real living and coastal economies are losing out significantly. Most importantly - fish stocks are being wiped out. In general it would seem that the needs of sea anglers are being ignored and that anglers and angling bodies are being deliberately excluded from helping shape inshore fishery management policies by SEERAD, The Minister and the Executive. We would like to see these attitudes change and so we intend to contact every Party Leader, party fisheries spokesperson and every sitting and prospective MSP in order to explain what we see as the main issues and areas of concern affecting sea angling. We shall be asking for their positions, views, opinions and suggestions and all responses will be made generally available on a web page and in summary form in SFSA Updates and Newsletters. An email has gone out to all SFSA members requesting their input, but we'd like to extend the opportunity to all, especially visiting anglers from other countries / regions, to have their views considered and included. We feel it is essential we get as broad a contribution as possible, that way the politicians will not be able to write it off as polarised input, so please make your contribution - what are the REAL issues affecting sea angling in Scotland now. Post here or email contact@sfsacu.com - and thanks in anticipation. BTW - if you are a member of the SFSA and didn't get the mail, it's only because I don't have your email address, so please send it to me and you'll be included in all Newsletters, Updates etc.

I was reading an article in our local Aberdeen paper the other day when I saw a reference to the value of fishing licence and haddock/cod quota sold by a fisherman for £1,200,000 in 1999. Doing a bit of following up it would appear that in the same year, according to the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, 120 of their 450 member vessels bought in, leased or whatever additional quota and that the trading of licences and quotas was worth probably over £1 billion to Scottish fleet alone. It would appear that whitefish licences were trading at typically £1800/tonne; pelagic licences were much higher, two having changed hands for £5m and £6m. Rental values for cod, haddock and saithe quotas were around £300 per tonne per year. These figures were for 1999, does anyone have any more up-to-date values ?

Would that they would Glen - The west coast of Scotland prawn fishery is a disgrace - I was talking with one of the west coast creelers the other day and he was really pee'd - the prawn trawlers are working the lochs every day, right up to the very edges, and the prawn are getting smaller and smaller. Overall, nearly 50% of their catch is discarded. This includes around 10 million immature fish in the last year I have data for. Never mind the prawn - that's 10million + taken out of the breeding stock. This of course pales into almost insignificance when one looks at the major fisheries; for example, the figures I have for 2003 show that for ICES sub area IV, North Sea, 200,000,000 + haddock, cod and whiting were discarded. This stuff hasn't been invented by anyone, it's happening now, it's documented under observer programs and it's being ignored by politicians and the industry alike with no real thought for the future. Why can't SEERAD / Defra / EU stop fiddling about with half baked solutions and exemptions and just mandate that ALL those commercially exploiting fisheries will use those methods that result in minimal by-catch. It may not be the total answer, but it would massively reduce wastage, wouldn't impact the commercials revenue one bit, but it would certainly help stocks recover. What's even more ironic is the fact that the governments are trying to promote 'local identity' to 'add value' to catches - thus enabling such as the creelers and the smaller inshore boats to make a more viable living - yet their very living is being undermined by those governments and the 'bigger' commercials.

Mr Wiggins email address is now joss.wiggins@btconnect.com

Jim, have a look at http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Do...hing%20Gear.pdf . It gives a good overview of the various methods used along with some clear diagrams. I think you'll find it very helpful.

Leon - I may be wrong, and no doubt will get told so, but I believe the key issue here is a lack of understanding within the general RSA world exactly what is happening and that is what has led to a great deal of mistrust. Perhaps it would be worth starting a new topic gathering together pretty much the main points from your last few postings so that everyone can understand the basics. Something along the lines of why the strategy got developed, who's involved and what the process is - I'm pretty sure most people thought strategy gets developed -- gets cast in stone -- end of story RATHER THAN strategy gets developed -- goes out for broadest consultation -- then the government makes a decision. My personal belief is that it's no good burying our heads in the sand as some would have us do, the government WILL go ahead and 'manage' RSA to some extent or another (directly or indirectly), so all RSA bodies should be aligned in common purpose to minimising the degree of management. There will not be that level of alignment until there is a higher level of transparency of any dealings with the government who no-one seems ready to believe or trust anymore. This is especially true for us in Scotland, as the results down there could be cascaded directly by Finnie onto Scottish RSA, yet all the talk is only about England and Wales.

Well, actually, NO British, German and Swedish ministers travelled to the annual fish talks in Brussels last week prepared to curb the number of days fishermen will be allowed to spend at sea catching the endangered North Sea cod by 15 per cent. They then discovered that European Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg had made a tactical blunder. In a back-room deal, he had given the hugely destructive Dutch beam trawl fleet a reduction in their days at sea next year of just eight per cent. His reason: he wants the Dutch to sign up to a flatfish recovery plan intended to bring back the equally endangered North Sea plaice. So ministers realised, in astonishment, that they all had to ask for a reduction of eight per cent – and not 15 per cent – or the fishermen back home would cut up rough. Charles Clover, environment editor of the Euro-sceptic Daily Telegraph wrote: “This is the way we do fish conservation in Europe – or rather why it doesn’t happen. If something has to give, it is always the fish.” From the Malta Independent http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=43894 Sempre i pesci, siempre los pescados, immer die Fische, toujours les poissons, altijd de vissen If I got any of them wrong, neither the fish nor I care.

Those links certainly are '404'ing. I don't think you should get annoyed Glen, if there weren't people sat around working with governments it would all be going on anyway and there'd be no opportunity to provide input and try and keep things sensible, anglers would have no sight of it until stuff was announced. As for being part of a bigger thing - that it is - nature conservation. The basis for the AGMACS work in Scotland is the Seas the Opportunity (2005) vision of “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine and coastal environments, managed to meet the long-term interests of nature and people”. Iin order to meet the agreed Desired State of Scotland’s Marine Environment the targets are :- • Gothenburg biodiversity target of stopping biodiversity loss by 2010 has been broadly achieved, and progress is being made towards the Scottish target of reversing previous losses by 2030. • Under the OSPAR Convention, work is underway to complete an ecologically coherent network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas, building on the finalised Natura 2000 network of marine sites. • Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) plans identify those coastal areas supporting the most sensitive species and habitats, and include an adaptive zonal management system to protect them. Recommendations must also contribute to achieving by 2020 the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy main aims : • Halt the loss of biodiversity and reverse previous losses through targeted action for species and habitats. • Restore and enhance biodiversity in all environments through better planning, design and practice. • Develop an effective management framework that ensures biodiversity is taken into account in all decision making. A whole load of good intentions, whether or not they'll succeed will be primarily dependent on political will -- I leave you to estimate the chances of that based on how the jellyfish, sorry, MPs, normally perform. Merry Christmas All

A similar discussion came up recently at Ross Finnie’s Advisory Group on Marine and Coastal Strategy (AGMACS) which I attend on behalf of the SFSA; it was part of the marine conservation work groups report. Unlicensed bait digging and collection is seen as being an issue in marine conservation, though most reports such as the Nautilus one regard individual sea anglers as low impact. The issue is with commercial gatherers such as those who wiped out the lug stocks in places like Budle Bay which led to its closure 1982-1984. It was reopened until '87 by which time it had been cleared out again - it's reckoned 4 million lug were taken in that time. The mass removal of peeler from the Tamar and other Devon estuaries as well as the Menai Straits and other places. I got clarification on the position here in Scotland, the target for ANY licensing were it to come in at all, would be the commercial bait gatherers. Individual bait gathering is a public right - at least here in Scotland. I'm afraid the commercial bait gatherers only supply one market - individual anglers - we need to ensure we only order up as much bait as we realistically need. We also need to recognise that bait gathering and digging can be disruptive if not carried out sensibly, so I would suggest all angling clubs / associations / representative bodies have clear statements on how their members should conduct themselves wrt Nature Conservation - gathering bait, activities around bird colonies, litter etc. YES I know that commercial gatherers do the most damage and they won't heed any of this stuff, but that doesn't mean responsible sea anglers shouldn't. The AGMACS paper is now being revised, I'll post an update when I receive it - should be around the middle of January, just in case I forget and anyone wants to remind me.

Only two days to go - if you don't tell them how you feel, don't expect any change.

Jaffa - No you took that one step too far - my point was quite simply that too many are in denial about the impact fishing has on stocks and the seabed environment, be it trawling, scallop dredging or whatever. There are grounds where these methods will have minimal impact on the topology, but in others areas the effect can be critical. The Clyde is a very good example - trawling inside of 3 miles in the Clyde was banned from 1889 until 1984 and it used to have fisheries for herring, mackerel, cod, turbot, plaice, hake, skate, whiting - now there is Langoustine and shellfish. The fish did not disappear due to global warming, global cooling, shift in ocean currents or any of the other excuses usually trotted out, they went due to overfishing, excessive discarding, upgrading, fishing spawning and nursery areas and the destruction of their habitat - which has all been freely admitted to by commercial organisations themselves. So all I'm not looking for the commercial fleet / trawling to be scrapped or whatever, just that fish stocks are exploited in a sustainable manner with minimal impact on their environment and to that end, governments including the EU, should move beyond their immediate parochial and political interests and manage the resources properly. All the relevant ministers will shortly be going back to their countries trying to tell their commercial fishermen what a great deal they've done on their behalf in the quota talks, it's about time they started to do 'great deals' on behalf of the stocks and our future.

Couldn't agree more Ian and it would be nice if some of the others who are always in total denial were to follow the lead of the Scottish commercial guys. BTW - it also got a mention in Parliament - Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): On the question of unregulated fishing in international waters—in particular, cold water coral reefs, which we almost discussed at Question Time earlier—will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent accord between and proposals made by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the World Wide Fund for Nature, especially on the Rockall bank and the Queen Elizabeth bank? That is precisely the sort of approach that should be encouraged. Will the Minister meet both organisations to see how their proposals can be taken forward? Mr. Bradshaw: I certainly warmly welcome the fishing industry working together with environmental organisations, as in the initiative that he mentions. When I began to do this job, one of its most frustrating aspects was not only that fishermen and scientific advisers found it difficult to work together or even begin to accept each other’s points, but that the gap between the environmental organisations and the fishing industry was even wider. When sensible and responsible environmental organisations, like WWF, get together with the industry, we see remarkable results. I meet both organisations regularly and I look forward to discussing that initiative the next time I do so.

The SFSA Conservation and Access newsletter has just been emailed to all those SFSA members / associate members that I have an email address for, if you are a member and haven't received one, please forward your email address to contact@sfsacu.com with your name and club affiliation where applicable.

Extract from todays Aberdeen Press and Journal which shows that when a realistic attitude is taken, groups can work together to try to protect stocks and the seabed from unsustainable methods. Whether or not the politicians will support them is of course another question. Commercial fishermen and wildlife campaigners yesterday joined forces to call for a ban on fishing in an area of the Atlantic to protect coral and fish species. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) and WWF conservation group urged the European Commission and European Union (EU) member states to close part of Rockall Bank, west of North Uist, to all fishing. They said the fragile deepwater corals on the bank were in desperate need of protection from damaging fishing practices. The area is also a nursery ground for important commercial fish, including haddock. Fishing gear such as trawl nets is potentially damaging to cold water coral formations, said the SFF and WWF. Damage to the coral would affect fish species, including juvenile haddock, which thrive in the deepwater environment. SFF spokesman Ian Gatt said: "Protecting the corals of Rockall Bank is good for haddock stocks as they are essential, safe feeding grounds for the young fish. .... "If the fish have nowhere to feed and mature they won't reach reproductive size and stocks won't be sustainable. "SFF is urging the EU to take prompt action to help conserve our fish stocks by closing all fishing in this area." WWF senior marine policy officer Helen McLachlan said: "The deepwater corals around Scotland's coast are as rare, beautiful and fragile as any found in tropical climes and support an astonishing diversity of marine life. "However they are virtually unprotected, with large areas being subjected to irreversible damage from fishing gear, particularly bottom trawling.

There are several sandeel fisheries off the Scottish coast, all of which, at one time or another, have been seriously depleted ( generally by industrial overfishing but recruitment has also been variable ) been closed from time to time and then re-opened. As far as I know, none have been irreversibly damaged, though stocks are still considered to be extremely fragile.

As FF says, one could hardly call that an unbiased view as it was the evidence given by Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Limited to the Royal Society's Inquiry into the future of the Scottish fishing industry. The Societys' summary report is at http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...ing_summary.pdf, or for the full report http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/enquiries/sco...ng_industry.pdf Quoting out of context, or without complete attribution brings nothing to the table, it only increases the distrust in the motives of those doing it.