Angling Trust "Battlegrounds"

[Mike Fox]

All,

I found David Mitchell's talk to be fascinating at our club meeting on Thursday 2nd February 2012, and I did talk to him afterwards about some of the points raised.

 

It's a complex topic, and I am starting to see why the Angling Trust is spread thinly, particularly relating to restoration of fish stocks available to recreational sea anglers.

 

In summary, my understanding of the 4 main issues presented were:

- Multiple "battlegrounds" on which to fight;

- Multiple stakeholders to involve and influence;

- Complex legal framework at local, national and international levels;

- Lack of funding to help make major achievements.

 

For this post, I would ask the club membership:

- To help clarify WHICH battlegrounds exist that would be useful for the Angling Trust to get involved with (which ones have I missed?).

I might insert a few more, as suggestions come in!

 

BATTLEGROUNDS (in alphabetical order)

Advertising of improved vigilance, reporting, and incident handling by Angling Trust

AIS mandating for all registered vessels (not just large ones) to aid rule breach detection

Bag Limits per species per angler per day at sensible levels to distinguish RSAs from illegal commercial fishermen

Beam trawling restrictions (e.g. Southern IFCA is trying this)

Black fish (Illegal selling of fish by Registered / Unregistered boats)

Closed areas and seasons for targetting/landings of breeding fish (bass etc)

Days at sea limits (seek less time, so less catches)

Deterrents being increased (such as involvement of HMRC for tax evasion)

Discards (see Hugh's Fish Fight http://www.fishfight.net/ )

Enforcement improvements (within current regulations)

Fishing effort constraints (see http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentatio..._effort_en.pdf)

Fleet size limits per port

Food chain species protections (quotas for sandeels, use undersized non-discarded fish instead?, etc)

Golden mile (one mile offshore with no commercial netting)

Grandfather rights (historic family rights to have fixed nets, Magna Carta, etc)

Grants available to commercial fishermen (put offshore only strings attached?)

Inclusion of "inshore" commercial catches to be registered against quotas

Inshore commercial boat size limits (12m now...what if this were 8m within 6 miles of land?)

Licensing system for commercial fishermen (one conviction and remove license?)

Logbooks to be mandated for all commercial fishermen (not just 10m + vessels)

MCA coding rules relating to commercial vessels (force out unwanted vessels?)

Mesh sizes (increase them to allow immature fish escape)

Minimum Landing Sizes - MLS ("up" them together with more species listed e.g. Black Bream?)

MLS "waiver" rules, if discards banned (undersized retained fish to turn into fish meal/animal fodder?)

New Quota species (e.g. include bass on the list)

Pair trawling restrictions (UK and Foreign vessels in all UK waters?)

Penalty increases for convictions (removal of license, confiscation of vessel)

Prosecution of offenders (Fish Legal etc)

Registered Fish Landing Locations to be set up and managed

Quick response team to help control capture of illegally fishing vessels

Quotas per species (smaller quotas to achieve stock restoration)

Scientific quota recommendation endorsement (understand, validate, agree, support, resist "political adjustment", etc)

"Smart" nets such as Eliminator Trawls (square mesh panels etc)

Tax evasion investigations, and HMRC involvement

Traceability improvements to be implemented for retail outlets (make it illegal to buy/use "black" fish)

Water quality prosecutions (cleaner water, better nursery area protections)

 

What would be YOUR top 3 priorities for some quick wins for the Angling Trust.

This part of the thread is open to the public, so keep it nice folks!

 

Mike

Edited February 11, 2012 by Mike Fox

[Paul J]

Wow great post Mike, it certainly puts a few things into perspective

 

A difficult task prioritising this lot, it's very complex but i'll get the ball rolling with my simplistic view

 

Quick wins you say:

 

1) MLS

2)Beam trawling restrictions

3)Golden Mile

 

Pair trawling bans would probably have the biggest impact but i dont see it as a quick win unless we can agree it with the french ( some positive rumours on that front at the moment) but from what i can see we cant agree amoungst ourselves very often

 

PJ

[Paul D]

My top three would be :-

 

Beam Trawling

Golden Mile

MLS

 

I also found the talk very informative and I know there is a whole cross section of views within the club, ranging from wholehearted agreement with the AT to complete disagreement.

 

 

[Neal]

My Top three

 

1) Inshore Netting - is this illegal and or what are the restrictions?

2) Beam Trawling - Who is allowed to do what and where?

3) Black Fish (Illegal selling of fish by Registered / Unregistered Boats)

 

Neal

[Mike Fox]

Thanks for the input chaps...and keep them coming! As a thought:

 

I remember that National Service has never actually been stopped, it's just the annual intake was reduced by Parliament to zero. The reason they did this was that in a national emergency they could resume conscription with a simple vote, not needing weeks and weeks to get new legislation approved.

 

The reason I mention this is that I suspect (though am not certain) that changing mesh sizes might be easier than the convoluted mass of legislation surrounding rights to fish in certain areas.

 

If I were to vote on a single measure to improve Recreational Sea Angling, it would be to increase mesh sizes for all inshore netting activities to a minimum of 1m square

 

Does anyone else think this might work?

 

Mike

Edited February 4, 2012 by Mike Fox

[Coddy]

Hi all

 

My three would be

 

1. Restrictions (to start with) of netting within a set minimum distance from the shore of 1 mile with a gap between nets of at least 1/2mile

 

2. All trawling within 6 miles from shore

 

3. No discards, all fish caught count as part of total quota (may mean no msl)

 

I also have a copy of the Southern IFCA Bye-Laws and will post any useful info I can from it, you can read for yourself if you wish here http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws

 

Just food for thought, I have been looking at the minimum retaining size for fish as published by the AT compared to DEFRA. http://anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=163

In some cases it seems we use smaller size than DEFRA which does seem crazy i.e.

Dab DEFRA min 23cm

Dab AT min 20cm

 

Flounder DEFRA min - 27cm

Flounder AT - 25cm

 

Perhaps the AT should up the minimum sizes to at least match DEFRA's minimum size or higher.

 

Dave

 

ps correction made to sizes

Edited February 5, 2012 by Coddy

[shytalk]

mm i do hope you mean cm ,

 

[Mike Fox]

The "black fish" market does concern many.

 

I understand that registered vessels have a variety of illegal strategies to retain over-quota fish, to land and sell fish without it contributing to their vessel's quota, and to use a variety of distribution channels to achieve untaxed income.

 

I also understand that the smaller "inshore" commercial vessels are not currently obliged to declare their catches, which means quota calculations are incorrect, and this provides a potential mechanism for larger vessels to "dump" some of their over-quota catches for profit. Even the legitimate landings by this sector can be significant, if they're not constrained by days at sea (e.g. the inshore trawlers criss-crossing Poole Bay).

 

Unregistered vessels are often seen day after day, catching large quantities of bass on inshore and offshore banks and marks. While their actions might be totally legitimate, I'm not aware that formal checks are ever (or frequently) performed on their activities. There are suspicions that they land bass, and sell them privately to the hotel and restaurant trade, again for untaxed income.

 

I would therefore like to propose more potential measures for the Angling Trust to pursue on our behalf:

 

- I think this tax evasion element might be one worth exploiting further by the Angling Trust, as this will introduce Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) into the equation, with their additional resources of people, surveillance, and coastal vessels, and more punitive penalites including confiscation of vessels. Even widely announcing their involvement might be enough to make black fish landings reduce significantly if not stop (as a deterrent).

 

- Traceability of high-value fish species such as bass (or all landings?) could be enforced. The hotel or restaurant would be obliged to prove their supplies came from a legitimate source, and that source was both taxed and traceable back to capture date and vessel, and a Registered Fish Landing Location.

 

- All ports (in the EU?) to have Registered Fish Landing locations, which would issue documentation for all landed fish passing through, enabling Traceability. Significant fines and other deterrents would be needed to enforce all landings through these points. The cost of these would be significant, as 24 x 7 manning would be needed, but automated controls could also be considered.

 

All registered vessels, including the smaller inshore commercial ones, to use the Registered Fish Landing locations, to ensure more accurate calculation on stock impacts.

 

I'll add these to the list above.

 

Mike

Edited February 5, 2012 by Mike Fox

[Rob]

 

Or a quota for private vessels for some species such as: 5 bass per person per day,this should reduce the temptation of this illegal selling. A boat full of bass would be hard to deny!

 

 

[niggle]

I liked southern Ireland rule two bass per person.

[Mike Fox]

I know that bag limits are a controversial subject for anglers (why pay membership to the AT if they're pushing to limit MY catches..?).

 

However, the suggestion of bag limits for "own consumption", limited to "sensible" levels can be seen to make some sense, and could be linked to other suggestions relating to some angling boats catching bass as "black fish" as illegal commercial activities

 

I'll add "Bag Limits per species per angler per day at sensible levels to distinguish RSAs from illegal commercial fishermen" above, for further consideration.

 

Keep them coming folks, and your TOP THREE remember...

 

Mike

[Member Removed]

Interesting thread this one.

 

For those of you who do not know, I am from Sussex and part of the Sussex Sea Angling Network administration panel. Much of what has been highlighted in the posts above have happened in Sussex. In Sept 2010 Sussex RSA handed in a petition to stop grandfather rights and trawling within 3nm's of the Sussex coast. The petition was placed in a few selective tackle shops who agreed to help local RSA and after about one month we collected them ready for a meeting between Sussex RSA and the then Sussex Sea Fisheries committee. 375 anglers signed the petition, in fact it was more than that but two lots of petition papers were removed from a tackle shop within days of each other. I was informed that both sets were crammed full of signatures.

 

Anyway the meeting with the then SSFC happened and as a result, our petition, after SSFC committee level consultation, was sent all the way to Mr Benyon. The Sussex Sea Angling Network SSAN was born from that meeting and today we are preparing for our second SSAN/Sussex IFCA meeting to be held in February.

 

I am very much pro AT and have met David Mitchell on a couple of occasions and in between keep in contact with David and others within the AT. I can tell you all that David Mitchell is one of the good guys and he really does understand our concerns. The reason why I am telling you this is because local Sussex RSA decided to take the bull by the horns to form SSAN. Which basically is about all Sussex sea angling and the membership includes shore anglers, private boat anglers, local clubs, charter skippers and tackle trade. The membership is not devided between AT members and non members, everyone is equal.

 

We have made a few mistakes along the way but we are getting there and IMO if you really want to help David Mitchell and the AT then think about forming something similar in your district.

 

As far as the top three:

 

As trawling in Sussex is legal within 0.25nm's of the Sussex coast this is number 1 in our list. Number 2 has to be grandfather rights and number three to stop all forms of netting within 0.25nm's.

 

Sorry but I have to mention another one and that is to push for a MLS on Black Bream. In Sussex there is no MLS and CF are targeting them for deisel money whilst they chase the Bass shoals. The Black Bream are worth as little as 30p a kilo at market. Some of you may have read all about it in TSF-Talking Frankly

 

So you see guys, our concerns are the same as yours, we may have different regulations but we are all one and the same.

 

Just one word of warning, one of the posts above mentioned permits for certain size CF vessels. All IFCA's have the power to licence and or permit vessels, including RSA, so tread carefully and think about our charter boys if you decide to move forward with this one.

 

Keep up the good work.

[duncan]

Mike

 

The first thing that occured to me when reading the initial post was that some steps would be simply useless without others - so it's important to link them to achieve any positive result in the long term.

 

Later posts, and your summaries, seem to be doing this quite naturally.

 

However, it might be worthwhile grouping the initial steps to better understand the most logical approach.

 

There is also some sensible contribution re bag limits. As an example of the above I would see it as more appropriate to ban ALL netting of any sort within 1 mile of the shore unless specifically authorised (game fish licences could be an example of such an exception).

 

Mesh sizes are always a challenge as, depending on the actual use of the net, it may or may not have any practical impact....and that's before you get into the issues of using prawn nets in areas with young cod (for example).

 

On balance steps that will influence behaviour are best.

 

It follows that without appropriate penalties (likelyhood of capture, prosecution and scale of penalty) it is entirely pointless to pursue any of these steps at all - for all parties will simply ignore it's aims and deal with any outcome as an inevitability rather than something to be considered. This therefore has to be step 1 but needs to cover many things.

 

In fact, until you have dealt with this there is no point in even discussing any other steps - but, if I was to go one step further it would definitely be Food chain species protections. It's strange that byecatch gets the emotive reaction it does when it's still in the marine fod chain whilst a million tonnes of sandeels being fed to pigs goes unnoticed...wierd.

[Mike Fox]

Some carefully considered comments there Duncan and Reg, thanks.

 

Mike

[Matt]

I think we should focus our efforts where we have common ground with other parties- the first target being disgards- the commercials seem as disgusted at the waste as us- if we can unite all parties on an issue we stand a good chance of it being looked at.

 

 

 

[Rob]

 

As David mentioned on Thursday, discards are complex.

 

Not catching the small / unwanted dish in the first place is the obvious choice, be it net size or better specific targetting.

 

In waned fish will always be an issue, but reducing its key.

 

I have a real issue with boats tha are allowed to fill up their boxes with say, small, haddock. Then ditch it all if they bring up a net of either bigger haddock or say bass that has greater value per pound.

 

[Paul J]

Food chain species protections. It's strange that byecatch gets the emotive reaction it does when it's still in the marine fod chain whilst a million tonnes of sandeels being fed to pigs goes unnoticed...wierd.

Great point

 

[Mike Fox]

Now that the flurry of interest has died down a bit, I'll add my three:

 

1. Closer liaison with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The Angling Trust has no real "teeth", so why not borrow the biggest out there. Improved links should improve capture and conviction rates, and the penalties of boat confiscation that the HMRC can impose are a real deterrent. Fining convicted "black fish" individuals doesn't act as a deterrent it seems compared to the profits that can be made, so make sure that the tax on the millions of pounds worth of illegal fish IS paid, and if it bankrupts them, then so be it. Also gives "quick wins", and publicity.

 

2. Increase the minimum mesh sizes of fixed nets set within 1 mile of shore. The size increase should be significant, and meaningful, with massive penalties for contravention. The "grandfather rights" might be enshrined in law, but the mesh size should be changeable by local by-laws. I believe mesh sizes should be increased to a level where catches are not economically viable, and the practice is stopped once and for all.

 

3. Make sandeels a quota species, and reduce the quota to zero. Any undersized, spiny, inedible and unwanted fish landed as an unfortunate by-catch from banning discards should be turned into fish meal instead. The food chain needs to be restored desperately, for the benefit of all predatory fish, birds, seals, dolphins etc.

 

Mike

PS. If I was allowed a fourth , I'd go with increasing focus on inshore beam trawling, and use every means possible to get this damaging practice stopped within 6 miles of the shore by ALL sizes of vessel.Being realistic, this might be the biggest battle of all, with the most to gain.

[cth]

Note from David Mitchell which also applies to anyone else. Wessex region Angling Trust is changing with our agreement,

 

If he is interested I would like to suggest that Mike Fox from PBSBAC is approached to be involved and even possibly be the representative to sit on the national Fishery and Conservation committee. I talked to him after the meeting in Poole and he has since started some good threads on the PBSBAC forum. I've also attached Mike's email so you can see how proactive he was after the meeting. If you've got any thoughts on this then please let me know. (sorry to put this on you Mike)

 

Chris Holloway

Chairman AT Wessex

 

 

[Paul J]

I'd be in favour of that for sure, id also like him to sit on the IFCA along side the other Rep

 

PJ

[Tiderunner]

Hi Mike,

 

Good thread this one,

 

My top three are as follows -

 

1 Closed areas to protect breeding fish

2 Restrictions on beam trawling

3 No pair trawling in Uk waters [ or anywhere else for that matter]

 

Also feel strongly over sandeel fishing for fertilizer and other products when as you point out there is a viable option in dead bycatch already.

 

Mike

[Maverick Martin]

In principle a rep from our club would be good so long as that representation was inline with the clubs own position however, to be fully represenative of our club it would have to go before the committee for agreement. Just so everyone is aware we do already have a conservation rep and someone else who is interested in some kind of representation.

 

That said there is nothing to say that any angler belonging to pbsbac could not go without club backing as an independant representative of all anglers or some other organisation.

 

Martin

 

 

[cth]

Just a note to clear up any misunderstanding about what AT are looking for, they are looking to have a Local Committee based within the IFCA area who sole interest is conservation, it would be made up of anglers, fishing trade, ie charter skippers and hopefully IFCA fisheries officers and the like, Anglers would not be representing there Club but hopefully would share a like mind, they would not be elected by the Wessex Region Committee but there Chairman would, they would also be able to elect them selves a rep to sit on the new national committee.