Angling Trust decides it cannot support data collection for recreational catches

[Rob]

Friday, 26th February, 2016

 

Angling Trust decides it cannot support data collection for recreational catches 
 

The Angling Trust will not be supporting Sea Angling 2016, a new project to collect data on catches from recreational sea anglers.

The project, commissioned by Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science), follows up on the Sea Angling 2012 research project and fulfils EU requirements for the UK to provide data on recreational catches for a number of species listed under the Common Fisheries Policy’s Control Regulation and Data Collection Framework. The research will also collect data on how much is being spent on sea angling in the UK. Anglers will be asked to fill out log books detailing their catches over the course of 2016.

The Angling Trust believes that, despite evidence being collected as a result of multiple projects over many years – Net Benefits (2004), Invest In Fish South West (2005), Drew Associates report (2007), Sea Angling 2012, Defining The Economic and Environmental Values of Sea Bass (2014) – the government has refused to take on board any of the recommendations or results which would accurately or fairly represent the recreational sea angling sector in the management of marine fishery resources.

The results of Sea Angling 2012 were used to justify the EU 2016 fishing opportunities decision for bass which saw recreational anglers banned from retaining bass for six months of the year followed by a one fish per day bag limit for the remainder of 2016. This was based on the assertion that sea anglers were responsible for 30 per cent of total bass fishing mortality. However, illegal, unreported and unregulated landings of bass from other sources remain unknown meaning the impact of recreational fishing is suspected to be massively over-estimated.

This has caused widespread outrage amongst the many hundreds of thousands of recreational sea anglers who do not believe these measures are in proportion to their impact on bass fishing mortality.

As a result, the Angling Trust does not feel it can actively encourage its members to contribute to the collection of data through Sea Angling 2016.

However, the Angling Trust recognises that effective fisheries management requires high quality data based on accurate landings and fishing mortality from all sources including recreational anglers. Assuming this is achieved, policy decisions should then be evidence-based and reflect the results of the data collected.

The EU Commission is in the process of auditing the UK’s data collection and reporting from the under 10m fleet. In addition Cefas and the MMO (Marine Management Organisation) are in the process of carrying out a sampling project to assess the extent and impact of unrecorded landings. Once factored into landings data this could very significantly reduce the relative impact of recreational angling.

The active contribution by the Angling Trust to any future data collection exercise would be on the condition that:

• Extensive improvements were made in the collection of accurate landings/fishing mortality data from all sources.
• Policy decisions are evidence-based and reflect the social, environmental and economic impacts of all sectors in a balanced and proportionate way.

David Mitchell, Marine Campaigns Manager for the Angling Trust, said: “In principle we haven’t got a problem with asking anglers to provide catch data – it’s impossible to make a convincing argument without evidence on which to base it. What we do have a problem with is lopsided data collection which leaves gaps in commercial landings data big enough to drive a beam-trawler through.

"The results of Sea Angling 2012 contributed to recreational catches of bass being estimated to account for up to 30 per cent of all bass landed. Yet at the same time scientists tell us the landings data from commercial bass fisheries is inadequate and the real figures could be three times higher than the official figures.

"As a result, recreational anglers are perceived as having a much greater impact on bass stocks than is probably the case. Until this is addressed we can’t see how volunteering data on recreational catches is going to do anything positive for the UK’s sea anglers.

"We keep being told that Sea Angling 2012 helped local and national policy makers to make balanced, well-informed, decisions. Tell that to the UK’s sea anglers who’ve been stunned by the recent imposition of a ban and then one fish per day bag limit for bass while the under 10m fleet using fixed gill nets – whose landings fail to get accurately recorded – saw an increase in their monthly vessel limits."

ENDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Media contact:

David Mitchell, Marine Campaigns Manager
Email david.mitchell@anglingtrust.net
Mobile: 07946 263131

Notes:

Details on the Sea Angling 2016 project can be found HERE
The results of the Sea Angling 2012 project can be found HERE

Angling Trust:

The Angling Trust is the national representative and governing body for angling in England. It is united in a collaborative relationship with Fish Legal, a separate membership association using the law to protect fish stocks and the rights of its members throughout the UK. Joint membership packages with Fish Legal are available for individuals, clubs, fisheries and other categories.

Find out all about the Angling Trust and its work atwww.anglingtrust.net or call us on 01568 620447

 

[Maverick Martin]

About bloomin time government agencies were told to go sling their hook.  All they ever do is manipulate data to suit their own objectives/bias 

[Kingfisher 126]

 

Looks like I've been sponsored with a fish ID book, waterproof note book and a fishy tape measure!!

Use my time after a fishing trip writing longer write ups for the forum instead of filling in the survey!! Sorry guys!! .

[Mal Thomas]

Same as Chris my waterproof book and  tape seem likes it a waste of time.

[Mal Thomas]

Lies, damn lies and statistics, just shows the recreational sea anglers are the responsible ones  and the under ten meter fleet the robbers of the sea.

If we can make public servants wear cameras, why cant we install cameras on their boats and AIS, no records no sale. Some how these catches have to be recorded and then the real data will be available.

If our club was taken as a snapshot sample how many of us go out trying and fail , and how many of us take the bass we catch, I know that in four years I have only taken 10% of my catch and some of those have been bleeding badly. I find it hard to take such a beautiful creature, when I know others are taking so many for monetary gain, the impulse to return and do my bit is far stronger than the urge to eat it.

[Stuie]

All a load of box ticking taking the easy option - the RSA's.

Not difficult to work out where the problem lies - who benefits financially from being conservative with the truth?

[Rob]

Having been pike fishing yesterday with two CEFAS employees, I had a discussion!

 

That was, Sea Angling 2012 did show that RSA's have a bigger impact that previously thought. Not sure of number but for instance twice as much as expected if that is 0.1% increasing to 0.2% then insignificant.

 

However, they said that without data they can't propose solutions and strategy to conserve / increase stocks.

 

One thing they were keen to say, is that they recommend policy but that is never what is enforced / made law. They are frustrated too!!!

 

So, the science is watered down, so I guess we are waiting for someone in "power" with balls and a backbone!

[Stuie]

Oops - just sounded off to the substance team -

 

To whom it may concern,

Since agreeing to take part in this survey I have given the issue much thought.

I now feel it an unecessary waste of my time - and your time - to continue this survey.

It was only 4 years ago that a full and in depth survey of recreational sea angling (RSA) was carried out.

I took an active part in this survey which appears to have been a total waste of time for me and all those who took part.

The 2012 results mean nothing as has been confirmed by our government (and your paymaster no doubt) taking none of the results into account and showing no parallel in depth survey of the commercial fishing industry. 

It appears to recreational sea anglers that they are being made a scape-goat for the demise of the European Bass when in reality it is the nets of the commercial sector that are the real threat to stocks. Controls on the commercial sector are shabby to say the least by comparison. There is no reason I can see for RSA's to 'bend the truth,as there is no financial gain. Can you hand on heart say the same applies to all commercial bass angler?

I suspect this survey is another unnecessary government tick-box exercise while burying their heads in the sand as to the real problem.

Why re-invent the wheel? Look at the USA's East Coast Striped Bass example - it really isn't rocket science, but of course enforcement costs money.

I'm not alone in being very passionate about these issues and what government and the EC need to do is take immediate punitive action against commercial bass fishermen.

Sincerely

[ChrisE]

Well, I've my diary, notebook and measuring tape.  I'll be giving it a go.

 

Whilst I understand the frustrations of data being manipulated/misused any data is better than an opinion and as Rob says without the data nothing can change.

 

By no means perfect but, IMHO, by rejecting any action we're putting ourselves out on a limb with no way of influencing outcomes.

 

I would have preferred the AT to work with CEFAS rather than issuing an outright rejection.

[Coddy]

I too have received my fishing survey pack and as Chris says, it is better to give some data than ignore it and to this end I will be completing the diary etc.

 

Dave

[Maverick Martin]

Survey = bollox (past experiences over 43 years prove it) ballot box = eyes turned, but only if you vote the right way (no precedence yet)

 

Our leaders (read as employees) and their masters (eu) need to know who is in charge

 

I must be getting older as I would only have thought this years ago

[Stuie]

Response from Dr Adam Brown

 

Dear Stuart

 

Thanks for your email which was forwarded to me and I am very sorry that you feel that you can no longer take part. I am in touch with the Angling Trust, with whom we work closely, and am aware of their position.

 

Can I clarify that Substance are commissioned to undertake the Diary catch and spend survey by Cefas. We do not set either the way in which the <10m fleet are monitored nor European or national government policies on bass catches.

 

What I would say is that whatever the situation it is important for recreational angling that its impact (environmental, economic and social) is as accurately understood as possible: indeed, following the experience of Sea Angling 2012 a different approach (the diaries) is being tried this year to try to provide a more accurate analysis of recreational catches. As such it is certainly not a tick box exercise for us, but one involving some very in depth work. This then offers a model of good practice against which other approaches can be assessed.

 

However, I understand your position and am copying in Kieran Hyder from Cefas who will pass your comments on to Defra.

 

Best regards

Adam

 

 

 

Dr. Adam Brown

substance.

3rd Floor Fourways House

Hilton St.

Manchester

M1 2EJ

www.substance.net