Guernsey Consulting on Bag Limits for Anglers

[chappers]

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?

 

The problem is that the guernsey commercials have laid out figures in this proposal and it is basically down to the charters to refute these figures but as Toerag says the only documented reports from the charters goes someway to backing up there claims.

 

The artical quoting Paul Whittal seems to have been heavily edited, particularly as i know him to be a very articulate journalist and writer. The point that the proposals, as they have been laid out, are extreme, are true and to accept them as written will be hard to take and will no doubt have some affect on the amount of trade that is brought to the island.

I also totally agree that it is important that we back the likes of Paul in a negotiation to strike a deal that benifits all concerned ie: the guernsey commercials the local island business and the charters and anlglers and we can only do this by providing reasoned arguments and not just stating that we believe the facts to be wrong without backing these statements up.

I'm sure that by co-operation between the english charter skippers maybe some figures may be able to be put together with regards to at least angling effort and then see how close these tie in with the proposals figures, to give an estimate as to the validty of the figures mentioned in the proposal.

[Puffin]

The problem is that the guernsey commercials have laid out figures in this proposal and it is basically down to the charters to refute these figures but as Toerag says the only documented reports from the charters goes someway to backing up there claims.

 

The artical quoting Paul Whittal seems to have been heavily edited, particularly as i know him to be a very articulate journalist and writer. The point that the proposals, as they have been laid out, are extreme, are true and to accept them as written will be hard to take and will no doubt have some affect on the amount of trade that is brought to the island.

I also totally agree that it is important that we back the likes of Paul in a negotiation to strike a deal that benifits all concerned ie: the guernsey commercials the local island business and the charters and anlglers and we can only do this by providing reasoned arguments and not just stating that we believe the facts to be wrong without backing these statements up.

I'm sure that by co-operation between the english charter skippers maybe some figures may be able to be put together with regards to at least angling effort and then see how close these tie in with the proposals figures, to give an estimate as to the validty of the figures mentioned in the proposal.

 

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:

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.

 

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

[chappers]

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.

 

Thats fine but as there is a proposal on the table to reduce the take of the english charter fleet, its a bit late to say we will start monitoring now, if we aggree to a compulsary logging scheme then as i see it, one of two things will happen;

 

1. the charter fleet will carry on as before, and after logging its catch will be suprised by the amount of fish taken and won't have a leg to stand on or

2. will, through fear that it is building evidence against itself, self regulate its take.This will give the commercials just what they want, anyway, and leave them un-checked.

 

We need to engage in this consultation and use it as a method of reducing or at least keeping steady the effort/take of the commercial fleet, but the only way I see us being able to do that is for us to agree to a reduced take ourselves.

[maverick of Poole]

I have been given permission form Paul Whittall to post a copy of the following email:

 

Dear Stakeholders/Customers.

 

I know you are busy people but here is some background information which may be of interest to you. It may provide you with an insight into what is going on and perhaps give you some additional information when you write your own response.

 

BACKGROUND

 

1. Accusations. On the 27th April Guernsey Press included an article in which it stated that the Guernsey Commercial fishing sector accused the UK charter boats of ‘decimating’ their fish stocks. The article ran to say that charter boats (UK charter anglers) were catching far more than they needed for their own consumption and were returning to the UK and selling their catches illegally through the ‘back door in the UK’. Despite this practice attracting a £5,000 fine 90% of the fish was being sold.

 

This story was repeated in the Fishing News on May 5th and appeared in the Sunday Express. It was also re-iterated on Guernsey Radio by Guernsey Deputy Minister Duncan Staples.

 

How do you feel about that? Do you like being accused of illegal selling of fish? Do you feel you are ‘decimating’ the Channel Island stocks?

 

The commercial sector ‘want to see this form of fishery stopped’ states Mr. Peter Munro, president of the Guernsey Fisherman’s Association.

 

We (PBA)have spoken to Guernsey Sea Fisheries about these accusations. They tell us there is no evidence other than hearsay to support this view. We (PBA) spoke to Southern Sea Fisheries. Apparently they had been directed by Guernsey Sea Fisheries to keep a close eye on returning UK charter boats through 2006 and to report any evidence of such activity. SSF (Southern Sea Fisheries) told US that they had reported back on a number of occasions that there was absolutely no hint of such activity taking place. (They sounded pretty angry about the whole thing when I spoke to them as clearly there is the implied criticism that they are not doing their job correctly).

 

We contacted Mr. Peter Munro (President, Guernsey Fisherman’s Assoc) to ask if he was happy the press were presenting his members’ views and if we might discuss matters. We had no reply.

 

Using Guernsey Sea Fisheries own statistics (available via their website on

 

http://www.gov.gg/ccm/commerce-and-employm...l-reprt-2004.en

 

which show that commercial landings of bass have increased dramatically since 2001 with a steady increase in turbot/brill, I argued with the Guernsey Press that their report was flawed. My letter was ‘edited’ to the point that all the details were removed!

 

I rang up Deputy Duncan Staples who admitted that his accusations against us were ‘based on hearsay’.

 

 

All the above undoubtedly motivated the publication of the Consultative Document. The source for it then is flawed and unfounded and based on accusations against us all that would be regarded as libelous /slanderous if it appeared in UK press.

 

2. The Boue Blondel fishery

 

The Boue Blondel is a mark to the west of Guernsey where bass congregate in the winter months and the Guernsey Commercial fishermen catch large numbers of bass. The Consultative Document itself states that 49 tonnes (20,000) bass was caught on rod and line there in ten weeks of winter fishing in 2004. The Guernsey Recreational anglers are incensed by this. They see it as ‘slaughter of breeding stocks’ and have made representations to Guernsey Sea Fisheries about this. The Boue Blondel issue dominates the Guernsey Forum.

 

There is a very real feeling that this continuous criticism by the local anglers has caused a reaction amongst the commercial sector. By accusing the visiting UK charter fleet of illegal and overfishing, it is felt by the Guernsey locals that this is a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the real ‘decimation’ of stocks.

 

The Consultative Document actually uses the Boue Blondel fishery as an example of how effective rod and line fishing can be to support its own argument in support of bag limits! We all know just how good the commercial rod and line angler is. With respect, it is not fair to compare the catch rate of a professional with the catch rate of a pleasure angler who may only bass fish a couple of times a year.

 

It would be worthwhile looking at the Guernsey Forum for the many comments about all this topic and Boue Blondel (http://www.fishing-guernsey.co.uk/forum).

 

3) Guernsey Sea Fisheries

 

Several UK charter boats have been boarded this season. In lengthy discussion with GSF we have been told that there is ‘No Fish Stock Problem!’ Any limits imposed on anglers would simply lead to a ‘redistribution of the resource’…i.e. we put the fish back; the commercials catch them.

 

The Guernsey Sea Fisheries published statistics state that the fish stocks on the Boue Blondel are but a tiny part of the breeding stock in the Channel…the commercial catch rate does little to damage the overall stock! Yet we are being asked to consider a TWO FISH LIMIT! Why? Surely it is clear that this is not a conservation measure but a pandering to a commercial minority.

 

FURTHER DEBATE

 

If you are interested in how much ‘interest’ this topic has attracted please check out the Anglers Net forum on

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=66501

 

 

4) Distribution of Consultative Document.

 

The distribution list provided by Guernsey Sea Fisheries shows that the document has gone out to many commercial organizations. It may be that these organizations will support these proposals and will certainly write a response. It may well be that it is easier for them, as they are organized, to formulate a strong message. It is harder for us as we are all individuals scattered across the country. Therefore…PLEASE, PLEASE write in. If you’ve never become involved in anything to do with angling like this before…please do it this time.

 

The address is Senior Sea Fisheries Officer, Commerce and Employment Dept, Raymond Falla House, PO Box 459, Longue Rue, St. Martins, Guernsey GY1 6AF (Tel 01481 234567).

 

 

5) Possible Points to include

 

Your name (and occupation).

 

How many times you have been to the Channel Islands

 

How much you estimate you/your group have contributed to the island economy

 

Your views on the accusations leveled at you for illegal selling of your fish in UK

 

Your views on a two fish per species proposal…would you continue booking trips to the Channel Islands if such a proposal were implemented? Why, when all the written evidence provided states that the there is no problem with the stocks, are anglers being asked to consider such draconian bag limits?

 

The Consultative Document uses American Striped bass as an example of effective fish management in USA but then says that bag limits there were part of a ‘raft of measures’. Yes, the USA does employ bag limits as do many other countries but they also employ a range of other limitations applicable to both the commercial as well as the recreational sector in order to protect the fishery. What limitations are to be imposed on the commercial sector?

 

Please, fellow skippers, make suggestions and come back to me?

 

Martin

[Jaffa]

I can follow the arguement that there is no case for the impostion of a Bass bag limit and am willing to believe this consultation may have began in the RSA/Commercial dispute over that one bass fishery,; but what about the big flatfish?

[maverick of Poole]

I can follow the arguement that there is no case for the impostion of a Bass bag limit and am willing to believe this consultation may have began in the RSA/Commercial dispute over that one bass fishery,; but what about the big flatfish?

 

I was on a boat fishing the Alderney banks in may of this year. The boat was boarded by fisheries protection officers who wanted feedback on the (at that time proposed) proposals. They got their feedback and when quizzed about flatfish stocks their response was they had no concerns over current stock levels and that this had all started because of mumblings from the commercial element. Oh and they never even examined the fishhold either

 

Martin

[Jaffa]

I was on a boat fishing the Alderney banks in may of this year. The boat was boarded by fisheries protection officers who wanted feedback on the (at that time proposed) proposals. They got their feedback and when quizzed about flatfish stocks their response was they had no concerns over current stock levels and that this had all started because of mumblings from the commercial element. Oh and they never even examined the fishhold either

 

Martin

 

 

Why would a FPO officer have "concerns" over current stock levels unless they happened to be particularly interested in the subject? As a cynic I miight imagine their main concern may have been to keep you happy; They get paid either way.

 

At their end of the day your account of the day will surely count for little when the consulation is weighed up, if its just hearsay?

 

Whats your opinion, experience and thoughts on on the state of the flatfish stocks on the Guernsey banks?

[maverick of Poole]

Why would a FPO officer have "concerns" over current stock levels unless they happened to be particularly interested in the subject? As a cynic I miight imagine their main concern may have been to keep you happy; They get paid either way.

 

At their end of the day your account of the day will surely count for little when the consulation is weighed up, if its just hearsay?

 

Whats your opinion, experience and thoughts on on the state of the flatfish stocks on the Guernsey banks?

 

Why would the fpo want to keep us happy? he could have done that by not boarding and taking up our hard earned leisure time.

 

My comment regarding the fpo's comments was only given for information on my experiences on the alderney banks.

 

Regarding my thoughts on the flatfish stocks I can say I have noticed no difference in catch rates experienced on our trips over the past three years. Cant comment on what they may have been like prior to this. From my experience the assumed catch rates of rsa's on the banks have been estimated at the top end of whats possible as we have yet to experience a bonanza day on the flats as reported by some.

[Toerag]

2. [the charter industry] will, through fear that it is building evidence against itself, self regulate its take.

 

This seems to already be happening, last year the pages on Deepsea.co.uk were full of 'flatty bonanza' and other such headlines, and there were pictures of decks paved in turbot. This year there have been no pictures of big hauls, and there's a lot of 'Another nice one boated, but for everyone that we keep we do return several others.' type comments.

 

 

 

Experience - in my experience the average size has dropped this year, to the extent that I haven't bothered flatty bashing since april.

 

 

 

Also - gossip for you all - apparently one of the commercial boats had a 38lb turbot last week with a blue trace in it's mouth. Did anyone here lose it??

[Puffin]

Thats fine but as there is a proposal on the table to reduce the take of the english charter fleet, its a bit late to say we will start monitoring now, if we aggree to a compulsary logging scheme then as i see it, one of two things will happen;

 

1. the charter fleet will carry on as before, and after logging its catch will be suprised by the amount of fish taken and won't have a leg to stand on or

 

In which case Guernsey will be justified in imposing some controls.

 

2. will, through fear that it is building evidence against itself, self regulate its take.This will give the commercials just what they want, anyway, and leave them un-checked.

 

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

 

We need to engage in this consultation and use it as a method of reducing or at least keeping steady the effort/take of the commercial fleet, but the only way I see us being able to do that is for us to agree to a reduced take ourselves.

 

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.