Rsa versus Commercial

[wurzel]

It is extremely frustrating, anyone who has seen a 36cm bass will realise just how small these fish really are, however, one thing that should be learnt from this whole sorry episode is that the NFFO have taken the battle to the minister (with a good bit of help from CEFAS) and been able to make their case. They have recieved unanimous support from their membership which is growing weekly. They had an issue with the MLS increase, had the support, full time staff and funds to fight it and appear to have won the day, even those fishermen (like Wurzel) who could quite reasonably, not been affected by the increase, chose to say nowt or even support the NFFO's moves.

 

So the lesson is............ well I'll leave you to make your mind up. It does however, show what a united, well funded, and well versed sector can achieve, something for which the angling sector can only look longingly at, because I suspect we will never be able to attain that level, even less so now. After all, they put forward a united stance, not a disparate position and because of that they have acheived their aim.

 

 

It also helps if your case is backed up by undeniable true facts.

[barry luxton]

It also helps if your case is backed up by undeniable true facts.

 

 

Hi Wurzel, can you give an opinion regarding the 100mm mesh in relation to discard while trawling? Would you consider the discard to be more than at 90mm?

[stavey]

Hi Stavey very strong words, but i think if you look hard enough there is some common ground. I don't believe that all commercial are of one breed. I also think both commercial and rsa have a common battle to win and that is over the men in suits who don't really have our interests at heart.

 

Hi barry

 

Yes i am sure, in fact i know there is some common ground to work with between the two, but the people who represent the commercial fishermen are not interested and that is the problem as this postponed bass mls increase clearly shows (and i feel that the majority of the few fishermen that are left are like minded) i have just told a few lads down the local tackle shop about the postponed mls increase and they are totally pi**ed about this decision i can tell you.

 

Barry i have written to defra about quota issues in the past and how unfair some of this has been on local and some national fishermen and indeed asked for some of these to be increased for some species where fishermen used more sustainable methods etc, but i am buggered if i or any of my sea angling club members and friends will ever bother again, cheers............

[wurzel]

Hi Wurzel, can you give an opinion regarding the 100mm mesh in relation to discard while trawling? Would you consider the discard to be more than at 90mm?

 

Hello barry

 

Steve G would be more qualified to explain.

 

 

With my limited knowledge of trawling, especially for other areas I can only give you a rough idea.

 

The only time they would use a mesh of 90 or 100mm is if bass was the main target fish, this is rarely the case, especially in the south west area where there is a mixed fishery. The haul would be made up of dover and lemon sole, red mullet, witches and other stuff such as squid along with the bass, the legal size for this is 80 mm, if they were to use 100mm they would lose most if not all the valuable soles and other fish that make up an important percent of the days work. I doubt many of them set off in the morning just to catch bass, some hauls would have bass in it some would not, some days you might have quite a few bass another none at all, that’s fishing. So it is not viable for them to use above 80mm, I don't know what the discard rate for bass at a mls of 36 cm is, no doubt there are a few, but as Steve G says there will be considerably more at a mls of 40cm, that is why it was out of the question to go for the 45 cm mls.

 

Along with facts such as

 

It's political nothing to do with conservation. I wonder if it is over turned, will defra still peruse rsa licensee’s?

As it only applies to UK fishermen there will be negligible if any benefit to the overall stock which is in good health.

The stock is in good health, increasing in it's range and capable of producing very large brood years.

There are already protected nursery areas put in place to protect young bass.

Uk fishermen are disadvantaged on the market side of things, The French will be supplying a market that Uk fishermen could, especially gouling when you have been fishing along side the same French men. Probably selling the same fish that you have just released.

 

All makes it a hard case to argue against.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello barry

 

Steve G would be more qualified to explain.

With my limited knowledge of trawling, especially for other areas I can only give you a rough idea.

 

The only time they would use a mesh of 90 or 100mm is if bass was the main target fish, this is rarely the case, especially in the south west area where there is a mixed fishery. The haul would be made up of dover and lemon sole, red mullet, witches and other stuff such as squid along with the bass, the legal size for this is 80 mm, if they were to use 100mm they would lose most if not all the valuable soles and other fish that make up an important percent of the days work. I doubt many of them set off in the morning just to catch bass, some hauls would have bass in it some would not, some days you might have quite a few bass another none at all, that’s fishing. So it is not viable for them to use above 80mm, I don't know what the discard rate for bass at a mls of 36 cm is, no doubt there are a few, but as Steve G says there will be considerably more at a mls of 40cm, that is why it was out of the question to go for the 45 cm mls.

 

Along with facts such as

 

It's political nothing to do with conservation. I wonder if it is over turned, will defra still peruse rsa licensee’s?

As it only applies to UK fishermen there will be negligible if any benefit to the overall stock which is in good health.

The stock is in good health, increasing in it's range and capable of producing very large brood years.

There are already protected nursery areas put in place to protect young bass.

Uk fishermen are disadvantaged on the market side of things, The French will be supplying a market that Uk fishermen could, especially gouling when you have been fishing along side the same French men. Probably selling the same fish that you have just released.

 

All makes it a hard case to argue against.

 

It only makes a hard case top argue against if the only thing being taken into account is the livelihoods of commercial fishermen. A dead bass, is a dead bass, is a dead bass. It doesn't matter one little bit to the stocks whether it is thrown back into the sea dead or sold in a fish market. Those trawlers will catch exactly the same fish this year as they would have done regardless of what the MLS is set at. The only difference is what would be sold and what would be thrown back. They obviously still get discards with the current 36cm MLS, but they don't seem too worried about that. I wonder how much the increased MLS and gill net mesh size increase would have offset the discards that the commercials are all of the sudden so concerned about?

 

Rodney Anderson of DEFRA said in December that DEFRA were no longer the sponsors of commercial fishermen. He said that DEFRA put the stocks first, and didn't favour any single stakeholder. Who is the liar, Rodney Anderson or Ben Bradshaw? If the stock came first, as they claim, then the MLS would have been set at a size where the fish has spawned before being landed. The only reason they can give for not increasing the MLS is the effect it might have on the pockets of commercial fishermen.

[ColinW]

It doesn't matter one little bit to the stocks whether it is thrown back into the sea dead or sold in a fish market. Those trawlers will catch exactly the same fish this year as they would have done regardless of what the MLS is set at. The only difference is what would be sold and what would be thrown back.

 

Exactly! We are continually told that these guys know what they are doing and almost exclusively catch what they target. If they accidentally catch a few bass when targeting sole then tough, that's a few extra quid they won't get. If they actually target bass, then with a 40cm mls it is in THEIR interests to use gear that selects for the 40cm fish, so that they don't kill what they could sell the next year. If they cannot select for 40cm using a trawl then DON'T TRAWL, there are other ways to catch them which are selective. If the mls stays at 36cm they have no incentive at all to change what they do.

I can't see any justification for a size limit based on giving trawlermen a bonus for catching fish by accident!

[wurzel]

It only makes a hard case top argue against if the only thing being taken into account is the livelihoods of commercial fishermen. A dead bass, is a dead bass, is a dead bass. It doesn't matter one little bit to the stocks whether it is thrown back into the sea dead or sold in a fish market. Those trawlers will catch exactly the same fish this year as they would have done regardless of what the MLS is set at. The only difference is what would be sold and what would be thrown back. They obviously still get discards with the current 36cm MLS, but they don't seem too worried about that. I wonder how much the increased MLS and gill net mesh size increase would have offset the discards that the commercials are all of the sudden so concerned about?

 

Rodney Anderson of DEFRA said in December that DEFRA were no longer the sponsors of commercial fishermen. He said that DEFRA put the stocks first, and didn't favour any single stakeholder. Who is the liar, Rodney Anderson or Ben Bradshaw? If the stock came first, as they claim, then the MLS would have been set at a size where the fish has spawned before being landed. The only reason they can give for not increasing the MLS is the effect it might have on the pockets of commercial fishermen.

 

 

You are right Steve a dead bass is dead whether it is sold or not, and it will effect their earnings by not landing them.

but the main argument is that the French will land them and sell them quite legally to British merchants because the British caught bass are crab food. It's hard for rsa to grasp but try putting your selves in the commercial fishermen’s shoes for a moment, nobody likes a cut in wages.

How would you feel if your merchant told you he had to buy in French caught bass at 36 to 40 cm because you had to throw yours away?

 

It does not effect me because I supply a different niche in the market.

 

It's difficult to argue the conservation angle because the stock is healthy I believe it will stay so while the sea temperature keeps rising.

[barry luxton]

but the main argument is that the French will land them and sell them quite legally to British merchants because the British caught bass are crab food.

 

It's difficult to argue the conservation angle because the stock is healthy I believe it will stay so while the sea temperature keeps rising.

 

 

Hi Wurzel, with regards to the main argument, i have heard that the total value of bass landed commercially in the uk is something like 3 mill per year, no doubt someone will correct me if i'm wrong. Of that we are not looking at a massive value of the bass take say from 36-40 cm. Unless the majority of bass landed is 36cm. There always has been massive anomaly between the uk and france regarding loads of items, i.e. fags, booze, fuel, etc. The majority of them are cheaper to purchace over there in any event. So the argument of the bass anomaly could only be on a very small scale. I would not imagine that there would be a lot of transits going over there to fill up with 36cm bass.

Personally even if the bass stock is healthy, i would like to see the bass stock be given a chance to grow into a very healthy stock and value for everyones benifit. At the top end i think the eu should be doing more to again increase the stock and value. But i dream. Cheers.

[stavey]

It's difficult to argue the conservation angle because the stock is healthy

 

 

Hi wurzel

 

What actually is a healthy stock in your honest opinion? maybe rsa's dont have a clue to what that could be? how have you come to such a conclusion? other than maybe your earnings have gone up through the explotation of bass year on year that is as there are other factors that could change that outcome that has nothing to do with more availability of that stock etc, cheers.......

Edited March 20, 2007 by stavey

[The doctor]

What actually is a healthy stock in your honest opinion? maybe rsa's dont have a clue to what that could be?

 

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.