Bass - Commercial fishing 2017

[Brian]

Just found this.

 

Bass 2017 management measures
– The Commission’s proposal published

The Commission’s proposed bass management measures 2017 were published today as part of a proposal for a Council Regulation on the 2017 “fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters.”

If adopted by the Council in December only recreational anglers and commercial hook and line fishers will be allowed to target Northern bass. Unfortunately, there still is no EU level regulation of Southern bass fisheries proposed.

We are happy about the proposal’s direction and most of the details. The biggest surprise may be the ban on bass fishing with nets. This alone would bring a robust reduction in the total of commercial bass catches, increase the protection of juvenile bass, and make control and enforcement easier. As most hook and line fishers can release bass with a high survival rate, more sophisticated management measures to conserve the stock would be possible with a minimum inconvenience for the fishers e.g. increase the minimum landing size from the present 42 cm, and eventually let go the biggest bass as well (the “super-spawners”) by introducing a max. retention size.

Like this year, fishing vessels deploying demersal trawls and seines will be allowed a 1% by-catch derogation. However, the Commission suggests, as a new thing, that no more than 1 tonne a month shall be landed under this derogation. This new cap is very welcome. However 1 tonne seems above what is sensible or needed (high by-catch allowances always include the risk of incentivising targeted fishing).

More details and comments:
• A closed season in February and March. Catch and release angling allowed.
[this year the closed season concerning recreational angling was six months long – first half of the year].

• A monthly recreational angling bag limit of 10 bass/month.
[this year the bag limit is one bass per fishing day only, which has and will do much damage to the bass angling dependant businesses. We therefore have urged more flexibility in the form of a monthly bag limit, which anglers could choose instead of the daily bag limit. We are happy that the Commission has followed our wish. However, we would prefer the Council to increase the 10 bass limit some. What remains to be decided later is a scheme to control the monthly bag limit. To make it easy for the angler, we have suggested an electronic log-book, which can be filled in via telephone, smartphone (an “app”) and PC].

• Commercial hook and line fishers: An annual catch limit of 10 tonnes (closed season Feb and March). “This derogation shall apply only to Union fishing vessels that have recorded catches of sea bass using hooks and lines from 1 July 2015 to 30 September 2016.”
[this is a “flexibility change” from this year’s limit: 1300 kg per month].

• By-catches: Fishing vessels “deploying demersal trawls and seines may retain on board catches of sea bass that do not exceed 1 % of the weight of the total catches of marine organisms on board in any single day. The catches of sea bass retained on board by a Union fishing vessel on the basis of this derogation may not exceed 1 tonne per month”
[the first part is the same as this year. The monthly 1 tonne cap is new]

The Commission’s proposal:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/…

Commission press release:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3504_en.htm…

Commission - Fact Sheet: “Questions and Answers on the Commission's proposal for Atlantic and North Sea fish quotas (TACs) in 2017”
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-3505_en.htm

See also EAA member 'Angling Trust' release:
www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp…

EAA bass dossier: www.eaa-europe.org/topics/sea-bass

 

[niggle]

I can't see how they are going to monitor 10 bass per month in my eyes a total ban would of been easier to police

[Brian]

Impossible to monitor.

Everyone would have to carry photo ID and everyone would have to be checked every time they went fishing.

Perhaps they're going to employ thousands of inspectors and we'll each have our own. Better fit an extra seat on the boat.

[Jim]

I agree with a total ban for a few years.

Letting commercials take them with no way to police it is absolute bo**o*ks.

And us get 1 per day for part of the year is unfair.

Total ban from boat & shore and strict policing in my view.

Sometimes when you've overdone it you need to take the medicine even if it does taste horrible. ( as my Dad used to say " if it tastes horrible it means it's working " )   

 

Jim

[Paul J]

I like this bit:

 

"The biggest surprise may be the ban on bass fishing with nets. This alone would bring a robust reduction in the total of commercial bass catches"

 

PJ

[Stuie]

Trouble is it takes several years to find out whether one scheme or another is beneficial to stock recovery. Hope it's not too late.

[Jim]

Trouble is it takes several years to find out whether one scheme or another is beneficial to stock recovery. Hope it's not too late.

It probably will be while they F***y about box ticking and ar*e covering.

In these times of " let's sue everyone " no one's prepared to stand up and say what needs to be said ! ! 

[NigelH]

Guys

Just concentrate on the proposal to gets nets out of the bass fishery. No more gillnetting bass!!!! The EU have proposed it, it needs the fisheries minister's to agree to it in December. If you want to try and help make it happen, email George Eustice at Defra and tell him to agree to it. No more gillnetting bass!!

Thanks

NigelH

[Osprey]

Totally agree NigelH. Let's concentrate on the positives. It's great news.

George Eustace might need a bit of persuading as his constituency is in Cornwall!

Let's flood him with emails.

[Astevens4]

The juvenile bass fisheries further along the coast at Dawlish Warren were seeing very good numbers of 1 yr old juveniles when i talked to the rangers there in the summer, so hopefully we still have the juve's about and with no netting, it should prevent them getting swallowed by the commercials before they have a chance to spawn.

[Paul J]

[Paul J]

We need to be heard guys and now to counter this lot trying to ruin the party again!  we cant let them water down the proposals, if we get rid of nets its going to be a great place to fish again in a few years

 

Go to http://www.saveourseabass.org/en/home/ and make a difference   do what you can

 

PJ

 

 

[Steve S]

personal email sent

[Steve S]

Interesting MPs view, very supportive actually

 

http://fishingnews.co.uk/2016/11/inshore-commercial-bass-fishery-mp-response/

 

 

This really annoys me, forget the lobster story, oh look I caught a sturgeon, never had one of those, must be rare, takes it ashore, offered around, no thought for returning it alive.

 

http://fishingnews.co.uk/2016/10/unusual-catches-orange-blue-holy-island-lobster-sturgeon-off-newhaven/

[Maverick Martin]

Done

[Stuie]

Done and petition signed too

[Coddy]

Interesting response from another MP

 

Bridgend MP Madeleine Moon responds to The Warsash Inshore Fishermen’s Group.

 

Madeline Moon MP.

Dear Editor,

I’m writing in response to the Open Letter from The Warsash Inshore Fishermen’s Group regarding the Inshore Commercial Bass Fishery and comments made in the House of Commons Debate on January 11 of this year, entitled ‘Recreational seabass fishing’.

This group, representing local commercial inshore fishermen, has taken issue with comments made by myself, and other MPs such as Scott Mann and Charles Walker, in support of bass conservation measures. In their letter they seek to claim that the increase in gillnetting poses little or no threat to bass stocks due their ‘selectivity’, which avoids both discards and the accidental capture of undersized fish.

They now claim to support the new, and hard-won minimum landing size of 42cm for bass, which is a complete about-turn from a few years ago, when the inshore commercial fleet were furiously lobbying ministers and politicians against an increase from 36cm, on the grounds that such a move would massively increase discards as evidenced by numerous articles in Fishing News.

Turning to the issue of selectivity, again the evidence contradicts the conservation claims made by the gillnetters. I would make the following points in response:

 

Fishermen work to release a seal from a gill net.

1) As can been seen above, and distressing photos it’s not just about selectivity of different sizes of bass. It’s also about impact on other sea creatures. Cetaceans, seals, and sea-birds are regularly caught up in inshore nets with lethal results.

2) It is claimed that the under-10m fleet is ‘lower impact’ and is ‘only able to deploy small lengths of net’, implying that the impacts on fishery resources are negligible. However, nowadays inshore boats are quite capable of deploying many kilometres of mono gill nets. Their own National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) published a statement at the end of July 2013 that powerfully confirms this very point.

The NFFO states:

“The fishing power of an under-10m vessel can be many times greater than its counterpart 20 years ago. As with the fleet of larger vessels, technology has not stood still.”

3) The easy and cheap availability of monofilament gill netting is well documented as placing considerable additional pressure on fishery resources, including on threatened species such as seabass. This is comprehensively documented in several CEFAS publications: including the Technical Report No 116 on Coastal Fisheries of England & Wales published 2002.

4) The Warsash fishermen choose not to mention hanging ratios, which are crucial to minimising the capture of undersized fish. A great many gill nets are set by a half [100m of stretched netting is set into foot and head ropes of just 50m]. These low hanging ratios now used for gillnets mean that instead of being relatively taut they are very loose, and so act more like a tangle net, with reduced size selectivity.

5) And, of course, there are well-documented accounts of gillnets capturing significant amounts of undersized fish, as was made clear in the Commons debate. For example, in March 2016 the Cornwall IFCA’s Principle Scientific Officer reported that during nine days of fishing in Falmouth Bay (Winter 2015-2016) a vessel that used 100mm-mesh gill nets caught 680 bass of which 82% were below the 42cm MCRS.

6) In the Southern IFCA area, which includes Warsash, the minimum size for grey mullet is 30cm. If commercial fishermen are targeting them with gillnets it would be interesting to know how they avoid catching undersized bass in the same nets? In addition to the above points, I should point out that it is not uncommon for legislators and conservationists to call for restricting the damage caused by entanglement netting. All across the globe there are numerous examples of a wide range of such restrictions.

For example:

In Australia gillnetting has been banned in areas of the Northern Territories to allow the sport fishing industry to develop and realise its economic potential, which far exceeds that of commercial fishing.

Florida: all entanglement netting is banned in State waters. Florida is now a leading international sport fishing destination.

Turks & Caicos Islands, a British protectorate: all trawling and netting is prohibited in favour of hook and line.

In Scotland, the ‘inshore fishing monofilament gill net order’ prohibits the use of mono gill nets inside six miles.

In Massachusetts, USA, commercial and recreational exploitation of striped bass is restricted to hook and line only.

Finally, I feel it is important to put this issue into the wider context of the condition of the UK’s seabass stocks, which was the driver for the January debate in Parliament. I believe it is important that our marine policies are driven by science and evidence, and not simply by producer interests and commercial pressures. As was made clear in the debate, we are reaping the consequences of not taking seriously the warnings issued by respected bodies such as the ICES, who are now recommending a total moratorium on all forms of bass harvesting in 2017 in order to rebuild stocks endangered by over fishing. The advice can be seen here.

In 2014, UK gill netters landed 584 tonnes of bass – more than the ICES 2016 Northern Stock advice of 541 tonnes for whole of the EU.

There is, therefore, no doubt in my mind that inshore gillnetting has played a significant part in the decline of bass stocks. That’s why I welcome this opportunity to correct the misleading claims made by the Warsash Inshore Fishermen’s Group, and to confirm that, far from withdrawing any remarks, I shall redouble my efforts to promote science-based policies that aid conservation and benefit the marine environment. I remain firmly of the view that once bass stocks are rebuilt, the fishery should be subject to sustainable fishing methods only such as commercial hook and lining, and recreational angling. Gillnetting has done too much damage to our bass stocks for far too long.

Yours sincerely,

Madeleine Moon MP for Bridgend

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

[Osprey]

Signed, shared elsewhere, and emails sent.

 

Madeleine Moon's response is brilliant!

[Stuie]

A polte reminder to members who agree with this issue to please sign the above petition - under SOS entry - and please also send your MP's an e-mail...