Bass Mls

[Wedger]

Bassmls - epetition reply29 April 2008

 

We received a petition asking:

 

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Increase the MLS for Bass to 45cm for commercial and recreational anglers."

 

Details of Petition:

 

"This petition is aimed to get the government to raise the Minimum Landing Size for Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) to 45cm. This would allow every fish to spawn at least once and allow us to move to a more sustainable Bass stock. We also urge the government to lobby the EU to introduce the MLS in all member states."

 

Read the Government's responseThe Government announced on 25 October that the minimum landing size (MLS) for bass would remain at 36cm. In reaching this decision, the Government considered all the available science and evidence and listened carefully to representations from sea anglers and commercial fishermen.

 

Bass is a particularly important stock for the inshore fishing fleet, which would have borne the brunt of the cost of increasing the MLS. The Government cannot justify introducing a measure which would have such an impact on those fishermen given the current pressures they face and the healthy state of the stock at present.

 

However, a package of new measures has been announced that will provide benefits for stocks of bass and more widely for anglers. This includes plans for a review of Bass Nursery Areas (designated for the protection of juvenile bass) and inshore netting restrictions.

 

 

[Brian]

Bassmls - petition reply29 April 2008

 

"Bass is a particularly important stock for the inshore fishing fleet, which would have borne the brunt of the cost of increasing the MLS. The Government cannot justify introducing a measure which would have such an impact on those fishermen given the current pressures they face and the healthy state of the stock at present".

 

In other words, they intend waiting until it's too late.

 

[Swainiac]

I sent in some questions to be put before shaw.....the guy seems a complete nob.

 

He will not look at the picture of recreational angling v commercial....saying that we are amassing research into this now...and this will be covered in the new RSA stargtegy plan. Its a shame that the RSA strategy was stolen by the head honch of NFSA a week before it was due tio be put to the government but then tweaked to make sure his version was taken up.

Smaks of jobs for the boys, this dude from the NFSA is purely feathering his own nest, he has HIS interests at heart, not thos of the recreational sea angling sector........pisses me off.

 

Rich

[petesnr]

Richard

You and Steve Coppello make a fine pair commenting on issues based on poor information and reactionary tendencies. The fact of the matter is that Richard Ferre the Chairman of the NFSA was asked to come up with a framework for a Recreational Sea Angling Strategy which he did in conjunction with members of SACN. This was adopted by the government as a consultative document to be put out to stakeholders in order to gain feedback as to whether the ideas within the strategy had popular appeal. As I pointed out at various times anyone interested could feedback to Defra their views on the document. These responses would then be used to take the idea further. The closing date for responses was 31st March and over 500 responses were recorded--almost a record for a fishery related topic according to government feedback. I responded on behalf of PBSBAC and Poole and District Sea Angling Association and pointed out that RSA were cynical about ministerial resolve to actually do anything positive for us after the bass mls debacle and that catch and release for tope would not help shore anglers or be effective unless action to halt the degradation of the marine environment by commercial activity was taken at international level. I also responded to their framework of response questions as, incidentally did the NFSA.

I dont know of any other individual or group who could have communicated with government as he has done. At no time has there been an indication that his framework will be adopted word for word--that is precisely why there was a long period for consultation. If anyone out there thinks that sea anglers will prosper by criticising the very people who have managed to get us recognised as stakeholders in fisheries management for the first time in history I challenge them to take up the gauntlet themselves and produce similar results.

Pete

[Swainiac]

Pete, where did this first draft documenet come from????

[petesnr]

The idea came from an informal conversation between ministry and RSA reps as far as I am aware. The original draft document was concocted by the NFSA conservation group in consultation with other SACN input. This was then put to Defra who came up with the consultative document which was different from the original draft. If the original document had been put out for discussion before submission to Defra it would still have been a consultative document only. The document provided a basis for any interested party to comment on and was not a policy document.

The bottom line is that the Strategy's aims include 'more and bigger fish' for anglers and based on 'principles of sustainable fisheries management'. If we can ensure that these principles are enshrined in future government policy I cannot see what argument any recreational angler has against the work of a very few voluntary individuals who are prepared to stick their necks out not only in front of a bunch of anglers but more importantly in front of those who will ultimately take the decisions that determine whether it is worth us investing our hard earned money in boats and fishing equipment. As I said at tonights meeting I have Richard Ferre's email address and believe that if anyone has a gripe over the content of the document then they ought to communicate with him directly rather than cast stones behind his back. He deserves better.

I have no further comment.

Pete

[Swainiac]

Peter, I have no gripe as such, with him on a personal level, I do, however, have a gripe with a plan being mirrored and released to government prior to another documents release, which is what happened here.

There is a bigger agenda within this documenet, not for angling per say, but again, on personal achievements and aspirations.

I am very unhappy with the way that this document was put to the committee, but I am a single voice. I have a stack of letters both sent and recieved to the House of Commons, and specifics have been skirted round and not answered directly.

 

Dont get me wrong, Pete, I am overwhelmed at your committment to conservation, both personal and as a mouthpiece for us in the club, and I know that you do have years of experience in this field, so please dont take this as a personal gripe at you and your work. It is not.

 

Rich

[petesnr]

Richard

I am afraid I dont understand your last message but you seem to be looking for conspiracy where there is none. Richard Ferre is a retired, successful businessman who has no need for petty self-promotion.

Many of us have written letters to government on questions concerning the future of our sport and not received any sensible reply. If there is any conspiracy it is between the decision makers in Defra (whoever they may be) and the representatives of the vociferous commercial sector. Their influence far outweighs any environmental or conservation based arguments.

I, myself, have sent letters with carefully thought out logical arguments backed up by my own knowledge and other anecdotal and scientific evidence only to receive illogical, 'cut and paste' answers. To say that I am frustrated is the understatement of the millenium but that is why we need people who can talk directly to the ones that control things and these people may not do exactly what we think they ought to do.

I believe that Richard Ferre is up to the task and I dont know anyone else who I would trust to carry out the immensely difficult task of getting the messages through the hysteria of 'lost livelihoods' and 'huge investment by individuals' that seem to rule the decision making in fisheries management.

We live in a country which actively advises third world countries to preserve rain forest whilst, because it is out of sight, we continue to allow mechanical forms of fishing to destroy the very seabed that is needed to nurture the next generations of marine species. Scientists now admit that a return to stock levels present after WW2 is unlikely due to the destruction of habitat of many species. In the end the only remedy for the decline in fisheries is going to be action taken at international level. Local species plans, be it bass, mullet or tope will only have limited success unless the whole ecosystem is taken into account. It is in the context of all these things that I consider infighting within the recreational sector to be entirely negative and non-productive. It seems to me that despite our numbers, contribution to the economy, and increasing awareness of conservation issues no real actions have been taken to halt the destruction. If we stand together then there is a glimmer, if we fight amongst ourselves we've lost before we've started. I dont take anything personally that you put in your messages and I'm certainly not looking for a pat on the back for the meagre contribution I've made to RSA. I am glad that you take such an interest Richard and hope that we fish together again soon.

Pete