Puffin

Puffin, The figures for guest house and b&b beds is available from States of Alderney tourism department 01481 822811 ask for tourism & marketing. Yes, they have figures for commercial landings and not for RSA. As I have written several times , it is the lack of figures that makes these restrictions unjustifiable. Angling Charter skippers do not wish to be "absolved" from providing data. Those I've spoken to have all been in favour of providing those figures via a logbook scheme. The quote from Sea Fisheries ends at the comma before your quote. I apologise for my less than perfect punctuation, I should have used a semi-colon.

You are absolutely correct that this is nothing to do with preserving stocks. Statements from SFO's confirm this. Greed is a natural human characteristic and I can understand Bailiwick of Guernsey commercial fishermen, or at least some of them, saying "their our fish and you can't have them". What I can't understand is a Government department that is willing to listen to such selfishness and risk doing serious damage to a tourism sector that contributes at least as much to the economy as fishing. I admire your optimism in viewing this as an opportunity, but realistically, if anglers bow to this without any objection they are begging for further and more serious government interference in future, and will be lending weight to the argument that fish stocks belong to the commercials by god-given right. By all means anglers represtentatives should be willing to negotiate, but blind acceptance is madness.

You are right, it would be interesting to see the CPUE for longlining, as it would for all commercial effort. Tope, huss and conger are low value locally but fetch a good price in Cherbourg, where they are landed. The French are less picky than the British when it comes to fish. Some longliners may have switched species but there is still plenty of longline activity on the Schole Bank, presumably targetting those turbot and bass you mention. The "scale" of the recreational fishery has changed very little in recent years, despite the misleading figures quoted by Guernsey sea Fisheries. There is only so much accommodation in Alderney and it limits the maximum number of boats at any one time to around a dozen, equating to around 100 or so anglers of varying degrees of skill and experience. Some will catch more than others. Some will put more back alive than others. However, even if you accept these figures they are still less than the commercial take. I used bass and bream as the two largest examples of increase in take between 2002 and 2005. Turbot landings also increased each year throughout that period from 3.5 tonnes in 2002 to 8.1 tonnes in 2005. Brill landings went up from 10.6 tonnes to 13.8 tonnes over the same period. If there is a depletion of stocks,and Sea fisheries officers are on record as saying there is not, it doesn't matter what the CPUE is and whether the fish are pair-trawled or not. The fact is that the majority of fish are taken commercially and more are taken commercially each year. If conservation measures are needed they have got to include of a reduction in commercial landings if they are to have any effect.

Also of interest is the 2004 Guernsey Sea Fisheries report, which can be viewed at http://www.gov.gg/ccm/commerce-and-employm...l-reprt-2004.en Look at bass and black bream figures for 2002. 43.8 tonnes of bass, 28.9 tonnes of bream. Compare that to 2005 at 173 tonnes of bass and bream at 158.8 Commercial kill of bass has quadrupled within 3 years and commercial kill of bream has gone up by nearly 5.5 times. So it's charter anglers who are decimating stocks? Yeah right!

Precisely! That is why there should be a period of data-gathering on the RSA sector by the introduction of logbooks. That would show the real picture and form a proper basis for decisions. It is true that there are no figures to prove what I believe, that being that anglers did not land anything like 7 tonnes of flatfish from the Alderney charters in 2005. Neither is there any hard evidence to support the claim that they did. Therefore action against one "player" and no action against the others is unjustified. That is unless you subscribe to the theory that all the fish in the sea are a feast to be enjoyed by the commercial fishermen and anglers should be grateful for the crumbs from the table.

Jaffa, Take a look at the thread posted by Andy Marquis about the 2005 Guernsey SFC statistics and you will see that you are indeed off the mark. Huge increases in take by the commercial fleet (Many times more than could ever be taken by anglers in a year) on nearly all the species that are proposed for bag limits, yet there is an allegation of stock depletion against anglers. There is also a statement that there is a "high abundance" of bass, yet a limit is proposed for anglers. Figures for 2005 commercial turbot catch given as 7 tonnes in the "consultation" document when the true figure in their own stats document is 8.1 tonnes. Do you still think the charter skippers and other businesses that rely on angling tourism should be singled out for punishment, or does it start to sound like Guernsey SFC pandering to the whims of the commercials yet?

That'll be the one I put back. Did I forget to take the hook out then?

In which case Guernsey will be justified in imposing some controls. Self-regulation already occurs in the form of putting back small but legally takeable fish. Also skippers would be pretty daft if they let every angler retain every fish to the point where they fished a productive mark to death. A commitment of well over £100,000 invested in a charter boat doesn't get paid off overnight so marks with fish on them for next month, next year, the year after are an assurance of future earnings I quite agree, but a drastic limit on anglers without a corresponding reduction in take by commercials is unacceptable. That is precisely what is being proposed. If there are proper conservation grounds for restricting take, which is disputed by most regular skippers and their anglers, the pain should be shared by all that depend on it.

What I'm asking for is a reasoned argument from those putting forward these proposals instead of half-truths and made-up figures. My own reasoned argument is that without facts and figures there is no justification for draconian measures. Is that an unreasonable viewpoint? Facts and figures could be collected by Guernsey Sea Fisheries over the next few years by introducing a logbook scheme requiring charter skippers to log all fish caught and retained in Bailiwick of Guernsey waters. 3-5 years should provide an adequate picture on which to base decisions on what action, if any, is necessary. Returning to an earlier post: I found this by a google search. See the top of pages 25 and 37. www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/bass-mls/responses-summary.pdf

Anecdotal evidence does not equal accurate statistics and the anecdotal evidence you point to refers to total numbers caught, not total numbers retained. Ask any angler how they got on and they'll tell you how many they caught in total. Ask any skipper how their trip went and they'll tell you the same. Let's face it, if you were a skipper of a charter vessel, would you talk down your catches?

Sorry Chappers, but I have to disagree with you about turbot catches. Someboats, occasionallycatch more than 30 turbot in a particular day. Those are the exception, not the rule. Of 30 plus fish caught not all are necessarily retained because, as I said in my previous post, most boat anglers don't "tiddler snatch" and return several fish which they could legally take. Of course two lifetime best fish could make 43lbs but thats what they are, the sort of fish you hear of being caught a handful of times in a year. The 43lb figure only holds true if all boats spent every day in local waters fishing for turbot, this is not the case. an average 3 night trip is usually spent likje this: Day1, wrecking Mid-Channel/Hurd Deep, maybe an hour bassing on the way into alderney. Days 2&3 Mixture of flattie bashing/ bassing, or tope/rough ground fishing. Day 4, Flatties or Bass in the morning, wrecking on the way home, or, depending on tides/weather, wrecking then inshore fishing UK side. The keenest flattie bashers are only going to get 3 days out of four. Those who prefer variety might fish for flats on only one or two days, making 43lbs per day an unrealistically low figure for the attainment of 7 tonnes per annum. That is why I say the guernsey sea Fisheries proposals are based on supposition and hearsay, not hard evidence. That is no proper basis for the introduction of restrictions. Had they introduced a catch and retain log scheme for charter vessels five years ago they would have hard figures to work with. It is not too late for them to be convinced to see sense and collect those figures before taking action. Anglers should also IMHO be pushing hard for a meaningful increase in MLS on "pressure" species applied to all. The worst thing anglers can do is do nothing. The second worst thing UK anglers can do is think it won't affect them. If Guernsey gets away with this don't think that Mr Blair and his chums won't look at doing the same.

What I meant was that by quoting the numbers in that way it appears like an attempt to make the numbers seem larger than they are. It Also leads the reader to do the sum 20 boats = 356 days so 50 boats must = 1425 days. Your arithmetic on the turbot catch falls into that trap. Your 19.66 kilos (about 43lb) per day sounds achievable if turbot numbers were consistent throughout the period, which they are not. It is not unusual for parties to catch only one or two between them. Not all boats fish for turbot and those that do don't spend every day that they are in local waters turbot fishing, if they did they wouldn't have time to "threaten" the bass, pollack, bream, cod and ray stocks . In my experience anglers and skippers self-impose a much larger limit than the ridiculous 28cm Minimum Landing Size too, so a fair proportion of turbot caught are returned alive. The same can not be said of the commercials. 7 tonnes taken by anglers? Not a chance. You are right that everyone who has a stake in this matter must make there voice heard. Otherwise it is a lose-lose situation. If there is proper evidence rather than supposition and unsubstantiated allegation that there is a problem with declining stocks then it's fair to say that whatever happens some form of bag limit will have to be accepted but it should be fair and policeable. It should also be matched by an increase in MLS and a restriction on effort for the commercials.

It depends whether you believe Guernsey Sea Fisheries figures. Remember these are the same people who made huge and unsubstantiatable claims about black marketeering a few months ago. I can't imagine where they get the idea that there are 50 vessels offering trips to Alderney. Also, offering trips is a lot different to actually doing them. I would guess the figure was less than half that and half that half actually making more than one or two trips a year to Alderney. The presentation of these figures is also misleading in so far as one could take it to mean that in 2004 20 boats fished all year with only nine days off! Divide 356 by 20 gives an average for each of only 17.8 days spent fishing locally. Interesting that there are no figures produced for 2005. is that because anyone of average intelligence could work out how ludicrous their claim is of anglers taking 7 tonnes of turbot?

Hello All, Please excuse the long post. It is a copy of my posting on fishing-guernsey.co.uk yesterday on the subject of bag limit proposals on visiting charter boats by Guernsey Sea Fisheries. Posted: Yesterday at 18:15 Originally posted by Andy Marquis Are there any thought on the tourism side, particularly from those members who are not Guernseymen? Cheers Andy Andy, As both an angler and an Alderney Guest House proprietor and the Alderney States Member with specific responsibility for the Environment I feel I'm well placed to comment on the bag limit proposals which Sea Fisheries have out for consultation at present. The basis for these proposals seems to be the unsubstantiated claims of some Bailiwick commercial fishermen that fish are being taken in commercial quantities and sold on the black market on return to the UK. Without concrete evidence this is nothing more than hearsay and is no basis for action. Angling charter boats are in the game for the long term. Their skippers are not generally fools and realise that sustainability depends on properly managed fisheries. They do not have the option that many commercial fishermen have of switching to potting if wet fish stocks are depleted, therefore they have a more pressing incentive to conserve stocks. Most skippers already put this into practice, particularly on the Channel wrecks, by moving on once the anglers have had a good catch of pollack, despite protests from their party that they want to stay and catch more. The fish do not represent units of currency to them, a wreck that is fished out is just a set of numbers in the plotter. A wreck with plenty of fish left for another day is an asset. The proposals themselves are an extremely blunt instrument.Skippers I've spoken to are not opposed to a bag limit per se, but it needs to be a fair and sensible limit. Two fish of the specified species per angler per trip is what is proposed. This takes no account of the length of trip so an angling party spending one night in the Bailiwick can take 2 fish each. Another party spending 7 nights, and therefore a great deal more money into the local economy will only be permitted the same 2 fish each. This is utterly illogical and guaranteed to damage the thriving angling tourism sector that has been built up over the last 10 years in Alderney. As a Guest House proprietor my business relies almost entirely on charter anglers, being 60-70% of our trade. If they are driven away by this clumsy attempt at regulation by Sea Fisheries I have no doubt that several Alderney Guest Houses will cease trading. So the Bailiwick's economy will lose the considerable sums spent by anglers in accommodation, food, drink, harbour dues, etc, etc. Alderney will also lose a critical number of tourism beds, making the island less able to cater for those who want to come here for other events, such as Alderney Week, the annual Hill Climb, Golf tournaments, Half Marathon, etc, etc. As you can see, the knock on benefits of retaining a thriving charter angling sector go much further than the benefits of "feather bedding" the commercial sector. It is unfair to include catches from outside Bailiwick waters in the "catch allowance" if the justification for these measures is conservation of the local fishery. The inclusion of Pollack on the specified list is extremely odd for several reasons. Pollack are abundant in local waters and have little commercial value, so are unlikely to fall victim to the alledged black marketeering. Pollack provide great sport on the deepwater wrecks but it is usually not possible to return them alive. Therefore it is my view that they should be excluded from the bag limit scheme for the time being and excluded from the "no-filleting" rule. The "no-filleting" rule in itself is quite reasonable. Generally Bass, Turbot and Brill are not filleted on board anyway, as most anglers like to have the whole fish to show off to friends and family when they get home. Heads and frames of these species also make excellent stock so it makes no sense to fillet them on board. The proposal for a discard ban shows that Sea Fisheries realise there is a serious flaw in their proposal. Anglers who have caught their two bass or whatever aren't going to want to turn round and go home. If better sized fish are caught there will be a temptation for the less scrupulous to dump the previous catch. At the end of the day a well regulated fishery is to everyone's benefit but these proposals are not a good example of regulation. Sea Fisheries need to look again at this and be absolutely certain that they look beyond the short term and beyond the rather narrow best interest of the commercial fleet. I would suggest as an alternative to Sea Fisheries' proposals that an immediate increase in Minimum landing Sizes be implemented for bass, brill and turbot. These are the species that all parties seem to agree are under pressure. Over time, by allowing more fish to breed more times before becoming fair game, the increase in MLS will make less fish legally available for the commercial fisherman and the angler to take and lead to greatly improved recruitment meaning more fish for all. Anglers in particular would benefit from fairly early in the process. I, like many others, am quite content to catch and return a lot of smaller fish rather than fish all day and catch nothing. Increased numbers of smaller fish being returned will mean increased sport, whilst still having the chance of landing a monster too. Returning to bag limits, with an increased MLS there would be less need for these to be so draconian. A limit of 2 fish of each species per angler per day could be applied, irrespective of the length of stay in local waters. This would bring with it a requirement for the skipper to notify either Guernsey or Alderney Harbour office in advance by radio or other means prior to starting to fish each day that they are in local waters. This would not be the deterrent to anglers spending longer here as tourists that the current proposal is. The two fish per day rule could, and should be applied not only to visiting charter boats but to all angling boats, including the "after-work-beer-money-fishermen" that are doing so much damage on your Boue Blondel. Bill Walden, Alderney States Member, Proprietor, Bonjour Guest House, Alderney.