The doctor

Given that Flamborough down to the Humber is the southernmost part of the district, I know of nobody who caught the usual 'plenty' of mackerel in this area last season, which is widely acknowledged as the 'worst in living memory' for mackerel, I'd be interested to know who you spoke to, because commercials and anglers alike can't remember such a dearth of mackerel throughout a whole summer. I do agree with you on one point though as I think it a bit disingenuous to state that commercial operations are to blame, when the real truth is that mackerel aggregated in 'super-shoals' last season and stayed much further west, possibly as a result in the shift of the gulf stream, which may be a significant reason for the cold winter we are experiencing. What is worrying is why the more regular smaller shoals were so low in number, this admittedly, could be due to fishing activity and the days when we did see the odd mackerel, they were more usually than not, undersized by North Sea MLS standards.

Marine, coarse, game and specimen???

Sorry Glenn but has this changed again, I know I missed a meeting recently, but that is nothing like what I thought we had agreed with Natural England at the formulation meeting. I stand to be corrected but walkers, dogs or anyone walking a dog were to be allowed, there are no navigation issues so boats cannot be prohibited neither can water skiers, jet skiers, wake boarders, float tubing or sailing craft. It is an experimental no take zone (NTZ) so it follows that any extraction of flora and fauna is prohibited by any means (commercial, recreational or by random picking by the general public (including winkles)). Commercial fishermen are not excluded per se, they can travel through the site but they cannot use any gears in the zone which extends from Sewerby Steps to the Salmon/bass licence near to Danes Dyke. This zone was chosen and proposed by local sea anglers and commercial fishermen in response to Natural Englands pursuit of a similar zone at a site (to be decided by them) at Flamborough Head. Such a site would of had a significant impact to the local charter fleet, local sea angling clubs, individual anglers and over 50 privately owned boats who fish the area, notwithstanding the commercial fleet at Bridlington and Flamborough, and the Salmon netters. Faced with the loss of the area, we worked with local commercial lads to identify a site that might achieve Natural Englands targets without significantly impacting both recreational and commercial sectors. I am happy that we have achieved this (well I thought I was ), although I'm sure we would all have preferred not to have gone through the process at all. You can be assured that fishing off the cliffs in this zone is not an issue, unless you can cast 500 or 600 yds and use a kite, although the site you referred to already has an extensive closed period and has for quite some time. From an angling perspective, there is essentially very little angling, if any, carried out along that stretch. North Beach up to Sewerby Steps is fished quite a lot, particularly for club and open matches and the occasional international match, but this venue is outside the NTZ site boundary, there is no real boat fishing carried out until north of Danes Dyke, so the NTZ is hardly an angling hotspot, the same is the case with the commercial lads, which is why the site maybe attractive to Natural England, as the only impacts are due to naturally occuring circumstances. If things have changed can you put them up for all to see how Natural England change their minds after striking agreements.

Hi Peter, I'm well thank you and extremely busy with the offshore and FLO works. I don't come on here very often and post even less, too many WUM's with their own less than clear agenda's. No I don't attend such meetings, and haven't for some time now, bit of a disagreement with the party line, which I couldn't endorse from either a scientific or socio-economic point of view. Correct me on a few points or put your differing opinion across There is a difference you know To a certain extent that is a point I concede, however, there is a reason for me using the period 2001 - 2008, and in particular July of each year as the comparative month. Firstly, the 'latent effort' as referred to by Sharpshooter is not included on the MFA vessel lists, as these list only reflect active vessels which have submitted log sheets for that month, vessels not fishing, are not included for that reason. The reason I picked July as the comparison month is that this is the peak month when part time vessels are likely to be fishing and therefore be counted in the dataset, if I'd picked December or February the figures would have been lower and not totally reflective. In 2001 the shift to shellfish was already heavily underway, so the comparison are broadly like for like, largely as a result of the primary stocks (cod) being at a much lower stock biomass than the present. Are you saying then that the MFA vessel lists before 2006 are made up and that DEFRA/MFA only started keeping lists after the RBS legislation came into force I agree that prior to the RBS the under 10's were largely left alone, but with over 4,500 boats in the UK inshore fleet, fish stocks declining, some seriously, having no idea of what these 4,500 under 10's were landing was from a management perspective an untenable position. If just 30% were landing a ton of cod a week for 4 months of the year, that equates to almost the total European quota for cod in 2008, although I don't want to get into a discussion on the validity of whether that is suitable from a socio-economic or scientific point of view. But that really isn't the case, given that we have THE biggest shellfish port in the UK (Bridlington), the current thoughts are that effort is way too high, brown crab has been very much low in numbers for a few years now, and there are national discussions on how to improve lobster conservation. All of which is emanating from the industry itself which is hugely reassuring. Unfortunately Peter, you've drawn the conclusion that I was saying that there are low fish stocks now, it was simply a statement that we now find ourselves in a situation whereby practically all the major commercial stocks are now being managed, as a result of low stock status in the past, not specifically at the present. It was a general comment that states without prejudice that were stocks are low in terms of biomass, then the only way to recover these stocks is through some form of management, be that a management or recovery plan. How you determine what 'low' equates to, largely depends on your status or position. Most fishermen will state that fish stocks are in a good to excellent condition, most environmentalists or greens will say the opposite. Anyway, I hope you are well, its about time we had another few beers and put the world to right again.

Before any of the cuddle crew shoot me down in flames I'm not trying to be confrontational or take any side, but; Fishing mortality is coming down on pretty much most of the main commercial stocks, and fishing mortality is predominantly linked to fishing effort, so it is untrue to say that efforts to lobby for a reduction in fishing effort/mortality have failed, if that was the case stocks would continue to decline, and with one or two notable exceptions, there is more evidence to show an increase and gradual stabilisation of these stocks than there is for a decline. What is open to speculation is who's lobbying efforts brought around the acknowledgement by the European Commission that drastic and emergency measures were required to bring down fishing mortality (effort), not that it matters to most people, its the end result that counts. The problem is that we are still very much in the early days of recovery; it takes a lot longer to recover fish stocks than it does to ruin them. Despite all the doom and gloom merchants, or possibly in spite of the doom and gloom merchants the UK fishing industry is pretty resilient. The claims that DEFRA & SFC’s etc are managing the inshore fleet out of existence is not supported from a historical perspective, in fact the decline of the English, Welsh and Irish inshore fleets since 2001 (in terms of the number of fishing vessels) equates to approximately 9.5% over an 8 year period which works out at almost 1.2% per year. In 2001 there were 3,371 under 10m vessels in the English, Welsh & Irish inshore fleets, in July 2008 those fleets comprise 3,059 under 10m vessels, that’s a reduction of 312 vessels (9.5%) over 8 years. If a comparison is made to July 2007, then there were 3,068 registered under 10m fishing vessels, which during a period when quotas have began to bite, is a decline of 9 vessels. Looking specifically at the north and east coast, in 2001 there were 42 under 10m boats working out of Whitby,6 out of Staithes, 23 out of Scarborough, 9 out of Flamborough and 15 out of Bridlington. In 2008, there are 32 under 10m boats working out of Whitby (c. 25% decrease), 7 out of Staithes (c. 15% increase), 37 out of Scarborough (c. 60% increase), 9 out of Flamborough (status quo) and 25 out of Bridlington (c. 40% increase). As Whitby bucks the trend it could be that it’s not specifically related to fishing or fisheries management that’s responsible for the decline of the under 10’s, most probably as a result of social change. However, there is another consideration to take and this is tied up with a point made by a couple of posters, that being in order land fish onto the key/market, the vessel/person doing so must have held (in 2001) a pressure stock licence. From my experience, a number of charter vessels in Whitby did indeed hold such entitlements and they were classified and recorded as commercial fishing boats, this also applied to a number of vessels in Bridlington. I’m not sure when, but I think that this entitlement was removed during the early days of the cod recovery management plan, I know the same skippers in Brid cannot land cod anymore, but they can land non pressure stock species (Bass, Pollock etc.). It is therefore possible that there has been no significant decline in the inshore fleet at Whitby, just a removal from the vessel list of charter vessels who no longer have an entitlement; this is particularly relevant at Whitby when you consider how large the charter fleet used to be. Consequently, the angling charter vessels are not acting illegally, as they have as much right to land certain species of fish as any other commercial fisherman with a category B (prawns) or C licence (non pressure stock), I have to say I’m not 100% certain on the licensing situation as it can be quite complex, but hopefully Wurzel can fill in any gaps or put right any misinterpretations, all I do know is that all or most under 10’s have a Cat A licence, many with shellfish entitlement. The problem lies with some sectors not being able to draw a distinction, between what’s legal and what’s not, and more often than not are too concerned with what someone else is doing rather than concentrating on what they are doing. The picture with the over 10m and predominantly offshore sector is different, over the same time scale (2001 – 2008) there has been a 25% reduction in the number of fishing vessels active in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. On a local level this translates to a reduction of about 40% at Whitby and 20% at Bridlington, although there is a slight increase recorded at Scarborough (8%). So all in all, there is no evidence of the government, MFA and or the Sea Fisheries Committees targeting the inshore fishing fleets and trying to bring about the demise of this sector. There is evidence of responsible management and attempts to ensure sustainability of our inshore fisheries, now I can see where that may be considered to be a bad thing if your having the amount of fish you can catch being cut or restricted, and I sympathise, but sustainable fisheries are not achieved by allowing free for alls, low fish stocks have to be managed, not just for fishermen but for other stakeholders (anglers) but probably more importantly, for the benefit of the environment and ecosystem.

Been told today by quite a few local commercial lads that the decision is indeed no increase and that the MLS for bass will remain at 36cm. The decision has already been conferred to the BASS Action Committee (NFFO) which is why the outcome is so widely known in the commercial sector, apparently it is alledged that those at the top of the BAC knew on Friday. I wonder when the BASS restoration Group will be told, if indeed they will be.

Mr Mallette has gone official, he's the new ?temporary? second mate on the NE Guardian III. The NE Guardian III is the new inshore fisheries patrol boat for the NESFC, which has been built in Finland, launched on the 9th October and currently undergoing sea trials, her new crew have gone out to familiarise themselves with the vessel.

Have you seen an increase in Tope down your way Sam, I thought the trend and catches were down this year?

Any further comment on this steve or was it a heat of the moment thing, we all have been there, sudden rush of blood etc. Best fishes Doc.

Steve, are you then saying that if any measures to improve stocks or recruitment capacity are put in place, that may as a consequence (in the short term) reduce your earning potential, your response will be to go out and to purposely undermine the measures, try to reduce the stock across the board, increase impacts to other species including marine mammals, and impact the RSA sector by reducing both availability and access. If this is the case, do you not think that such moves are hugely irresponsible. If I have misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise. Obviously I have no idea on the size of your vessel, if you are under 10m then is it realistic for you to work over 20km of trammels in a day? Doc.

Hi Peter, the figures quoted relate solely to the central and southern North Sea, as they consider that there is no significant English bass fishery north of Yorkshire. Wrt number of vessels, I quote; "The numbers of UK vessels involved in fishing for bass are estimated from a fleet census, which has been carried out bi-annually since 1985. In Divisions IVb, c, vessels fishing for bass peaked in 1994 (at 451), fell in 1995 and 1996, then rose again to 626 by 2005". It doesn't mention anything about Dutch, french or Belgian vessels, it simply says UK vessels. Recruitment figures are for the southern and central North Sea, as is the fishing mortality, not the Humber only. Generally the recruitment in the eastern and western channel (post 2002) looks worse than the North Sea. The only bright spot, in terms of recruitment, appears to be in the Irish Sea, although 2003 was the poorest year for a decade, however, 1998 - 2002 was strong in comparison. As you say, you can manipulate statistical output to look which ever way you want, I'm sure your not averse to such action yourself. What I don't understand is why would your mates at CEFAS purposefully try to paint a blacker picture, when they are doing their utmost to help you get the MLS reduced to 36cm and take control of the bass fishery, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure you are aware that the Yorkshire fishery is dominated by the under 10m potting fleets, these vessels fish all year round for lobster, edibles and velvets and have done for many years. A lot of them used to shoot nets during the winter for cod but when that died they concentrated on shellfish, quite a few are moving back to netting now, predominantly targeting the bass, but also include soles, becks and cod (if they still have their cod entitlement). Whilst they may only actively fish for bass for a couple of months of the year, they are still fishing for bass, therefore I assume that these vessels are included in the fleet census figures. Doc.

Hi Stavey, yes I'm aware of the effect the solar storms have on the planet, I'm also aware of the trends in terms of temperature rise these solar events have, and the opposing effect of low solar outbursts. Like Wurzel, and probably a number of people, I have never been convinced wrt to the effect of carbon emissions and the alledged contribution to the 'greenhouse effect'. I am more inclined to believe that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a greater influence on fish stocks, recruitment etc. than the 'global warming influence wrt sea temperature rise. The sun is what drives our planet and the vast majority of life on it, I don't see why the shallow seas are any different, in fact without the effects of the sun on the oceans surface waters a large percentage of the deep abyssal fauna would not be able to survive either IMO. Simply put; the solar winds eminating from the sun strike the earth, they modify the earths climate, which in turn switches the NAO between the negative and positive phases and visa versa, these episodes can build up over a number of years to a major climax, and then dissipate in both frequency and intensity over a similar but not identical period. As you suggest there is a good correlation between the peak recruitment years for cod and these solar driven events. No there isn't a TAC for Bass, it was after all a hypothetical example. I suppose we could employ a scientist to produce a hypothetical model to suit the needs of RSA, although I'm more concerned with stocks in general rather than concentrating on a single species like bass. But until such time that we have the available funds and support to do so, we will have to rely on the out put from your guys (CEFAS), and hope that your sponsors (DEFRA) are able to see the bigger picture. I see where you are coming from, but the CEFAS data for the North Sea just doesn't support that to any great extent. 97 was nothing special, 98 was poor, 99 none existant, it was only after 2000 that recruitment showed any real signs of promise. 2002 was quite good, but half of 92's potential, since then there has been a noticeable decline and poor recruitment. The SSB has risen by approx. 1/4 over the same period, although F has increased from about 0.1 to just over 0.3 again for the same period, and I expect F to be approaching 0.4 by the end of this year. According to CEFAS there were 626 UK vessels targeting bass in the Central and Southern North Sea in 2005. The fish we are seeing now are the 2002 year class (40+cm), it will be intersting to see how the anglers and commercial guys get on this year. As stated above, CEFASS data indicates relatively poor and declining recruitment since 2003, so not the year class strengths coming through that we would like to see. Still when its gone its gone, no point crying over spilt milk. Again according to the most recent CEFAS data (Bass in the North Sea - 2006) "vessels fishing for bass peaked at 451 in 1994,....... then rose again to 626 in 2005. Indications are that the number of boats fishing for bass in the North Sea has in actual fact doubled since the mid 80's, certainly if the number peaked in 1994 at 451, and there are now 626 boats (2005), so your contention that there are half the number of boats fishing for bass is unfounded I'm afraid. Unless someone is telling porkie pies!!!!!! As above, I have no figures for 1976, but bass recruitment in 2002 was half of that recorded during 1992, a year which you don't seem to think as of noteworthy. I couldn't comment on the 1992 yr class as we very rarely saw anything other than a few schoolies. Subsequent recruitment in 2003 and 2004 was lower than 2002 (2004 looks to be about 1/5th of 2002), still too early yet but I suspect that 2006 was a total blow out. CEFAS also state that landings by English vessels in the central and southern North Sea (2004/2005) were around 400 tons, a 300% increase since 1993. I only report the facts as they are published so please don't shoot the messenger

And herein lies a significant part of the problem. ICES, STECF, ACFM, the EU, DEFRA and CEFAS all claim that bass stocks are at sustainable levels, and the commercial sector use this to support their own position, thats fine, I would probably agree. The problem is how you define sustainable and to what reference are you applying the statement. We hear an increasing rhetoric with regard to the importance of considering the social and economic value of commercial fishing, which again is difficult to argue against. However, if you consider the sustainable utilisation of a stock in terms of commercial exploitation only then it is that sector for which the maximum benefits will accrue. Alternatively if you were to consider sustainable in reference to include recreational exploitation, then the picture would be significantly different. There is no doubt that bass stocks are on the increase in the North Sea, we hear more frequently about how anglers are catching them in comparision to 7 or 8 years ago, although as a result of the increased distribution, sea angling effort has also increased proportionately. However, if I look through local club match records (8 clubs), it is clear that there has been no increase in the numbers of bass weighed in during a season, if anything the picture is significantly more variable, and the bass fishery appears to have been more stable back in 2002/03 when it first began to take off. I know for a fact that the number of bass caught last week by one vessel is greater than all the sea angling clubs recorded bass landings over the last 10 years. Is it any coincidence that sea angling catches stabilised or slightly declined once commercial interest and consequently, pressure increased, despite the obvious increase in bass numbers. The whole point is that currently managers and scientists assess the sustainability of our marine resources in the context of commercial harvesting, that does not account for the requirements of sea angling, i.e. if the SSB is 100K ton, then the TAC can be 50k ton. For anglers to benefit from the hypothetical model, the SSB would need to be 130k ton, that would give the commercial sector access to an acceptable level whilst allowing anglers a realistic opportunity to catch fish. The problem is, is that the latter hypothetical model will never occur all the while that science considers resources as a valuable commercial commodity. Doc.