Category News

  • Home   /  
  • Archive by category "News"

UK and EU agree unsustainable bass fishing opportunities for 2025

10 Comments on UK and EU agree unsustainable bass fishing opportunities for 2025 , , , , ,


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.

eu-uk-written-record-fisheries-consultation-2025Download

Bass 2025 Fishing Opportunities

2 Comments on Bass 2025 Fishing Opportunities

This morning, the EU Commission has advised that the UK and EU have agreed to set bass fishing pressure below the ICES headline advice, in recognition of the bass stock still being at a dangerously low level. The ICES headline advice was to shrink the stock by 7%.

However, we are still waiting to hear the actual catch limits agreed. If they keep catch limits at their current level, the stock level is expected to decline. The UK and EU have a legal commitment to take all appropriate remedial measures to ensure the rapid return of the stock to a safe level – will they deliver on that?

In particular, have the UK and the EU actually increased catch limits for bottom trawlers and seiners, thus increasing fishing pressure when the stock needs rebuilding? We expect to find out in the course of this week.

The (Bass) Nightmare Before Christmas?

Leave a comment

In 2017 and 2018, the bass stock crashed to scarily low levels.  But since then, as a result of emergency restrictions, the stock has recovered somewhat but remains at an unsafe level, so more stock rebuilding is needed.    But like any good scary movie, just when you think things are getting better, the shocks keep coming.

In recent weeks, we have realised that the scientists’ annual bass stock assessment1 doesn’t contain rebuilding advice.  Instead, it presents “Headline Advice” that, if followed, would actually shrink the bass stock, not rebuild it!

The scientists’ assessment provides other, lower, catch scenarios that fishery managers could follow, but the problem is the fisheries managers’ normally aim to set fishing opportunities in line with the Headline Advice and say this is “sustainable”.  Regarding bass specifically, so far we have only heard Defra talk about the “Headline Advice”, which makes us concerned they may not appreciate that the Headline Advice for bass is not aimed at rebuilding the bass stock and is therefore not “sustainable”.

When we raised this problem with Defra’s UK fishing opportunities negotiators, to their credit they seemed to take it on board that not having scientific rebuilding advice, when you are supposed to be rebuilding stocks, is a rather difficult place for fisheries managers to find themselves and have offered a meeting to discuss this problem in early 2025.

But what will UK and EU fisheries managers decide in the next few weeks for the bass fishery in 2025?

The EU Advisory Council for North Western Waters (which is dominated by commercial fishing interests) has recommended following the Headline Advice and shrinking the bass stock by 7% in 2025 (overturning the more conservative position of its bass focus group that recommended no change to the total bass tonnage killed).   We have heard France is seeking to increase landings by bottom trawlers and seiners, whilst rolling-over catch limits for other gear types – so aiming to reduce the bass stock by 3%.

Bass Angling Conservation supports the position taken by the European Anglers Alliance and the International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities:

“the EAA and IFSUA recommend that fisheries managers should not follow the ICES headline advice and instead should consider alternatives to the ICES headline advice and aim for Total Removals that would either increase or, at the very least, maintain the SSB2 in 2025. Recognising the significant challenge of reducing fishing pressure enough to achieve stock growth within the year, we recommend that fisheries managers target a Total Removals level of 1,469 tonnes in 2025, a 26% reduction from the estimated 2024 removals of 1,990 tonnes.”

Where should these cuts fall, if the fisheries managers were to decide to do the right thing by the bass stock?  Recreational fishers have had no increase to their bag limit since 2020, whilst commercial fishing limits were increased in each of 2021, 2022 and 2023, so we argue that fisheries managers should revoke some of those previous commercial fishing increases.

However, fisheries managers know that reducing commercial catch limits upsets commercial fishers, so it seems likely that, at best, fishery managers will settle for a roll-over of 2024 measures and keep their fingers crossed that the scientists are wrong and this won’t shrink the stock by 3%.  Do UK fisheries managers and our Fisheries Minister have the nerve to stand up for the bass stock and the improved long-term socio-economic benefits that will flow from maintaining or growing the bass stock in 2025? We will soon know the answer.

[1] https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27222843

[2] Spawning Stock Biomass

Sussex Netting Byelaw

5 Comments on Sussex Netting Byelaw , , , , , ,

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.

BAC Response to SxIFCA Netting Byelaw Consultation – June 2024Download

Fishing Opportunities for 2024

Leave a comment

On 6 December, Defra said the UK and EU have signed an agreement for 2024 fishing opportunities, but the agreement has not yet been published. What does this agreement mean for sea anglers?

Pollack: no restrictions on recreational fishing in 2024. Although the scientists says recreational fishers have a substantial impact on the pollack stock, Defra says the evidence base is very limited. The UK and EU will explore the potential for managing recreational pollack fishing via the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. A “bycatch TAC” (Total Allowable Catch) has been agreed for commercial fishers, rather than the zero TAC recommended by ICES.

Bass: no change to bass catch limits, however Defra noted poor recruitment is a challenging situation. Defra say they are following the ICES advice, which is recommending a 7.7% reduction in the bass stock, as being the best available science.

But shouldn’t fishery managers be asking the scientists “how can it be ok to reverse, in one year, the biomass gains of the last 3 years, when there is declining recruitment and we are supposed to be recovering the stock back up to a safe level?” World-class fisheries management involves questioning counter-intuitive advice, not simply accepting it at face value.