Bass Angling Conservation regularly attends the fisheries stakeholder meetings (Regional Fisheries Group) for the South to South East region (area VIId).
Here is what we said at the last meeting – NB we’ve tidied it up to make it a bit clearer. If you’d like to listen to the meeting, you can do that on a Government website here:
Just looking at that dismal mackerel quota take-up by under 10 metre boats reminded me I’ve been receiving comments from recreational fishers having increasing difficulty catching mackerel on the south coast and it makes me wonder whether any catch per unit of effort goes into the assessments?
Sole
I just pulled up the sole assessment and the stock is in a real mess. You can argue about the level of recruitment, but there’s a pattern of low recruitment in recent years. The top confidence interval for the stock is almost at Bpa (the level below which rebuilding is needed), so the stock is likely to be below Bpa. The answer to that is to fish at a lower level. I’ve lost confidence in the Fmsy numbers (i.e. recommended fishing pressure level) as I’ve learned how they’ve been calculated – I’m inclined to take them with a pinch of salt. The objective should be to try to grow the stock year on year. We can’t forecast very far ahead with any degree of accuracy because of the massive uncertainty. So why don’t we do something very pragmatic and simple – say we’ll try to grow the stock each year. Maybe that will also take us away from having these huge variations in fishing opportunities as well. What we’ve got doesn’t really make any sense – it doesn’t work.
Uncertainty in ICES Science Advice
I’m laughing to myself as I look at the catch scenarios table and I see something ridiculous. The spawning stock biomass estimates for 2028 are to the nearest tonne and that is just nonsense. There’s no real discussion in any of this ICES advice about the level of uncertainty. We can we can pick holes in recruitment, we can pick holes in all sorts of different aspects of it, but these are intended to be best estimates, nothing more than best estimates. And yet the way that it’s presented is as if it precise – fishing pressure should be no more than 163 tons. To talk about 163 tons in the context of all of the uncertainty in the model and data – and not to say “this is really uncertain”. Managers need to be aware this is really uncertain. If you don’t recognize this uncertainty and you treat everything as if they are exact values, you get into this nonsense of fishing opportunities jumping up or down every year. It doesn’t work for fishers and it probably doesn’t work for the stock either. You need something much more progressive and incremental when you’re trying to recover a stock.
A recent report published by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) proposes replacing the UK’s existing quota system with permanent, tradeable property rights, giving each commercial fisherman a fixed share of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in perpetuity.
Commercial fishermen undoubtedly need certainty to invest in vessels, equipment and businesses. But certainty does not require granting perpetual fishing rights over a public resource.
The proposal would make permanent a historical allocation of quota that was originally granted free of charge. That allocation was based largely on recorded landings, a system that disadvantaged many small-scale fishers whose catches were not fully captured in official records. Making these allocations permanent would not correct historical inequalities; it would preserve them indefinitely.
The report also places a strong emphasis on improving economic efficiency within the commercial catching sector. However, fisheries management is not simply an exercise in maximising the economic efficiency of one group of resource users.
Fish are a public resource
Wild fish stocks are a public natural resource to be managed on behalf of society as a whole. Governments have a responsibility to allocate access to those stocks in the public interest.
This requires balancing many legitimate objectives, including conservation, recreational fishing, sustainable commercial fishing, coastal communities, and the interests of future generations, while also ensuring fairness between sectors.
The key question is not simply who can extract the greatest economic value from fish stocks today. It is how access to a shared resource should be allocated in a way that is sustainable, adaptable and delivers the greatest overall benefit to society over time.
Fish populations shift, climate change alters marine ecosystems, scientific understanding develops and public priorities evolve. Any system of fishing rights must therefore preserve the ability of future governments to respond to changing circumstances rather than permanently fixing today’s allocation of fishing opportunities.
Recreational fishing cannot simply be ignored
Perhaps the most striking omission from the ASI paper is its failure to consider recreational fishing as a legitimate user of the UK’s fish stocks. Commercial fishermen are not the only people with an interest in how those stocks are managed.
Millions of people participate in recreational sea angling. This supports significant economic activity through charter boats, tackle shops, accommodation providers and hospitality businesses and contributes to the economies of coastal communities. Recreational anglers are not merely pursuing a leisure activity; they are important users of a shared public resource.
For some species this matters enormously. For the Northern bass stock, scientific assessments estimate that recreational anglers catch more bass than the commercial sector. Yet the report offers no explanation of how permanent commercial fishing rights would protect the interests of recreational fishers, or how future governments could adjust access arrangements if doing so produced greater economic, social or environmental benefits.
A proposal that permanently allocates access to one user group without addressing how the interests of other users of the resource would be protected is fundamentally incomplete.
Certainty does not require perpetual fishing rights
None of this means commercial fishermen should lack certainty. Fishing is a capital-intensive industry and businesses need confidence to invest. But there is a significant difference between long-term certainty and permanent fishing rights. The current quota system already provides considerable stability while retaining some ability to reform allocations in the public interest, where justified and with appropriate notice. The case for certainty does not require access to a public resource to be converted into permanent private entitlements.
A more balanced approach would retain public stewardship of fishing opportunities over time. Rather than allowing access rights to become permanent assets that can be bought and sold indefinitely, fishing opportunities should remain subject to public management and the ability to reallocate them when circumstances change.
This principle has already been recognised in UK fisheries discussions. The Bass Management Group’s 2025 Authorisation Review considered proposals to prevent newly issued bass authorisations from becoming transferable assets when vessels are sold. One of the stated benefits was that this would help maintain flexibility in managing fishing effort, enable opportunities for new entrants and prevent fishing authorisations becoming primarily valuable because of their commodity value.
The principle is important: fishing opportunities should exist to support sustainable fisheries and public objectives, not become financial assets whose ownership is divorced from active participation in the fishery.
Don’t compound yesterday’s mistake
The UK introduced fixed quota allocations in 1999, based largely on historical catches, with quota shares allocated free of charge. Over time, these allocations became valuable commercial assets, creating significant private wealth from access to a public resource.
However, historical catch records did not provide a complete or fair picture of participation in the fishery. Larger vessels with more complete catch records were often better placed to secure quota allocations, while many small-scale fishers with less complete records received a smaller share of future fishing opportunities than their actual contribution might have justified.
Making these allocations permanent would lock in the inequalities created by the original allocation. Existing quota holders would receive a major windfall, while future generations of fishermen would have to purchase access from those who already hold the rights, rather than obtain opportunities through public allocation. This would create additional barriers for young fishermen and small-scale operators seeking to enter the industry.
If reform of fishing rights is considered necessary, a wider question should also be asked: where governments allocate valuable access to a scarce public resource, should the public receive some benefit in return?
Many countries charge resource rents or licence fees for access to valuable natural resources. However, any such approach would need to be carefully designed. It should not undermine the viability of fishing businesses that may operate on narrow profit margins, particularly small-scale fishers.
The principle is that access to public fish stocks should be managed to deliver the greatest benefit to society as a whole, balancing economic viability, environmental sustainability, coastal communities and the interests of future generations — rather than permanently transferring valuable rights away from public stewardship without the public receiving a return.
Economic efficiency is not the only objective
Tradeable quota allows, in theory, the market to determine where fishing opportunities can be used most efficiently within the commercial catching sector. But economic efficiency within commercial fishing cannot be the only measure of a successful fisheries system.
The allocation of fishing opportunities is not simply a question of allowing the most efficient operators to acquire them. It is a decision about who benefits from a shared natural resource, and it affects not only commercial businesses, but also recreational fishers, coastal communities, new entrants, the marine environment and future generations.
A market-based approach can create unintended consequences. Experience from transferable quota systems shows that fishing rights can become concentrated among fewer, larger operators and financial investors. This can increase the cost of entering the sector, reduce opportunities for young fishers and small-scale operators, and weaken the connection between fishing rights and the communities that have traditionally depended on fishing.
A successful fisheries management system must recognise both the potential benefits of markets and their limitations. The purpose of fishing rights should not be to maximise the commercial value of those rights, but to ensure that access to a shared public resource delivers the greatest overall benefit to society.
Keep fish stocks under public stewardship
Commercial fishers need a stable and predictable framework. They need confidence to invest, plan for the future and run viable enterprises. The existing quota system already provides considerable certainty for quota holders. Supporters of permanent fishing rights argue that they would provide additional benefits, including stronger incentives for stewardship by giving rights holders a long-term interest in healthy fish stocks.
However, the extent to which making existing quota rights permanent would deliver additional improvements in fisheries outcomes remains uncertain. The long-term health of fish stocks depends on many other aspects of fisheries management, including ambitious stock recovery targets, transparent and robust scientific advice, effective monitoring and enforcement, and improved data collection. Improvements in these areas may offer greater opportunities to improve the sustainability of fisheries, while avoiding the risks associated with permanently transferring control of a public resource into private hands.
Fish stocks are a shared public resource. Decisions about access to those stocks must balance the many legitimate interests involved, including recreational fishing, conservation, sustainable commercial fishing, coastal communities and future generations. The value of fish stocks extends beyond the income generated by commercial catches, and the allocation of access may need to change over time as ecosystems, economies and society evolve.
Permanent fishing rights would make such changes more difficult, limiting the ability of fisheries managers to respond to changing stock distributions, improved scientific understanding and changing public priorities.
The UK’s fish stocks should remain under public stewardship, with access granted on terms that can adapt over time to deliver sustainable fisheries and the greatest overall benefit to society.
Minister Boosts Commercial Bass Catch at Expense of the Stock and Anglers
The bass stock crashed in 2015 and has still not recovered to a safe level, so we need to keep fishing pressure low and focus on growing the stock.
But in December, the Fisheries Minister ignored our advice and increased all commercial bass fishing catch limits for 2025, which will shrink the stock. He has prioritised commercial fishing profits over the health of the stock and the quality of the bass fishery. So much for claims of “sustainable fisheries management” and “World Class fisheries” – actions speak louder than words.
And to add insult to injury, this is the 5th year in a row that commercial fishing catch limits have been increased, without any increase in our bag limit. It’s a slap in the face for anglers. Not only is this unfair, it may well be illegal, since the law says recreational fishing limits must be “non-discriminatory”.
And it doesn’t stop there, the law also says that “all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock” to a safe level. So how can shrinking the stock be legal?
If this makes you angry, please send an email to your MP asking him or her to meet the Fisheries Minister to discuss these points (not just fob you off with a standard letter written by Defra). We’ve made it super-easy for you to do this, just click on this link to our website.
The bass stock is at an unsafe level, yet instead of at least trying to keep the stock stable by cutting fishing pressure, unbelievably the UK and the EU have just agreed to increase bass fishing pressure and shrink the bass stock. And yet the law says when the stock is at this unsafe level “all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock or functional unit concerned to levels above those capable of producing MSY”. Who in their right minds thinks agreeing to shrink the bass stock will ensure its rapid return to a safe level?
And once again, recreational fishers have been discriminated against – increases for the commercial fishers but not for recreational fishers.
Get ready for Defra and our Fisheries Minister telling us what a great deal they have done, that sustainability is their watchword and they are heroes for not having followed the scientists’ advice that would have shrunk the stock by 7%. Despite them having no idea what additional Total Removals their decision to increase fishing pressure represents or how much it will shrink the stock.
You can read the sea bass changes at page 15 of the attached document.
Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority was told that it should consult on radical changes it made to its proposed netting byelaw (scrapping the proposed “netting exclusion zones” and allowing netting very close to the shore).
Bass Angling Conservation has now replied to the consultation. You can read our full response below, but the key points are:
SxIFCA needs to consider the needs of recreational fishers, not just commercial fishers. Nearshore nets damage the sea angling experience and reduce socio-economic benefits: nearshore nets can stop sea anglers casting, and strip fish out of a local area, both short term and long term.
more protection is needed for sea trout. The Environment Agency has said protecting just the top 1.5 metres of the water column from nets is not sufficient. We need nearshore spatial restrictions.
drift nets should be subject to the same rules as fixed nets, following Environment Agency advice.
in 2023, no one landed fish into Sussex caught using ring nets or seine nets. So let’s stop them being used Sussex.
The local fishery manager in Cornwall (the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Association) develops new byelaws in private, excluding the public from Byelaw Working Group meetings and refusing to disclose Byelaw Working Group agendas or meeting papers to the public. This is despite the UK being a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, which is aimed at transparency in environmental law-making.
Additionally, it allows the Chairman to serve for more than 10 years. This is contrary to the Government’s Code on Public Appointments. A Cornish Councillor said in 2020 “most of the major democratic nations in the world have limitations on the amount of time that a person can remain as president as two terms. And the only people who go longer are the tyrannical states like Russia and some of the other places. I think it is a backward move, something we need not do. I would suggest that we don’t do it.”
If you know any Cornish sea anglers, please pass this message on to them and suggest they kick up a fuss by contacting their MP, Councillors and members of the Cornwall IFCA Committee.
Until the bass plan is amended to prioritise a higher stock target, I will be telling Defra ”We do not accept your plan”.
Have you ever had the frustrating experience of someone asking for your advice, you spending valuable time giving your advice, and then that person ignores it and does something else? This is what Defra has done to sea anglers with the bass plan – asking sea anglers what they want to see in the bass fishery and then publishing a plan that doesn’t prioritise what we want.
But Defra has listened carefully to commercial fishers, promising them a review of the bass authorisation system that could let more commercial fishers into the bass fishery, suggesting ditching the “bycatch only” rule for netters and trawlers, allowing commercial fishers to land all the bass they catch and changing the system to enable commercial fishers to get their catch limits increased more quickly.
The biggest problem with Defra’s plan is its impoverished objective for our bass stock. What sea anglers want is simple: improve and protect the bass stock so we (and our children and our childrens’ children) have more and bigger bass to catch – fewer blanks, more trophy fish. We like catching large, powerful bass and these fish are vital to the stock too, since they are more reproductive than smaller bass. Currently we have a bass stock structure where too many of the large bass have been removed by commercial fishing, so the stock lacks resilience, increasing the chance of another crash in the future.
95% of sea anglers and 74% of commercial fishers who responded to the consultation told Defra “To allow the bass stock to rebuild and be maintained at a high level, a long-term strategy is needed.” We asked Defra to look at World class fisheries abroad, for example Australia, where the state of Queensland is targeting stock sizes of 60% of the natural, unfished stock size, recognising that much larger, healthier stocks maximise benefits for coastal communities. But Defra wants the UK status quo to continue in the short term, targeting a stock size just 33% of the natural, unfished stock size (or, putting it another way, allowing 67% of the bass stock to be killed).
Defra talks about the current stock target being “sustainable” but that is very misleading. What Defra means by “sustainable” is just that the fish being killed are balanced by the stock growth, so the stock size is stable. But a wide range of stock targets are sustainable in this narrow sense, there is absolutely nothing special about Defra’s current target, except that it aims to maximise the tonnage of fish being killed, which is a really stupid thing to do.
Until the bass plan is amended to prioritise a higher stock target, I will be telling Defra ”We do not accept your plan”.
With thanks to Sea Angler magazine for permission to use this article.
