Category Science

  • Home   /  
  • Archive by category "Science"

Why did Defra remove Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group?

Leave a comment , , , , , ,
Bass FMP Bass Management Group Blog Defra Fishing Opportunities News Science Uncategorized

We’ve been asked why Defra removed Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group.  Apparently, Defra has provided the BMG with some reasons and these will appear in the minutes of the last meeting.  Here is our perspective.

We have stubbornly and persistently fought for the BMG to start its most critical work.  We have raised serious issues with the scientific advice and said the BMG must take these into account when advising on bass fishing opportunities.  We have drawn attention to tasks being implemented without stakeholder approval.

Removing BAC comes at a cost.  It will greatly erode recreational sea fishers’ trust in Defra and the BMG and make it harder to deliver the Bass FMP.   Remaining BMG members may wonder what they are allowed to say before Defra removes them for “hampering” its work.  Failing to address stakeholder concerns by shutting down discussion is not in the spirit of stakeholder engagement.  Say goodbye to any real co-development and co-management.

Sea anglers deserve nothing less than strong, independent representation on bass management.  BAC will continue to hold Defra to account and ask the difficult, but necessary, questions.  But this will now happen outside the BMG.

More detail is provided below.

Control of the BMG

The BMG should be an autonomous stakeholder group and the Terms of Reference say Defra will chair for the first year and will then hand over to another member.  But Defra never stepped down as Chair, it holds a tight grip on the agenda and the BMG defers to Defra.

With Defra directing meetings and shutting down discussion of issues such as which tasks to prioritise, we see no chance of the BMG delivering what recreational sea fishers value most: an abundant and resilient bass stock, fewer “blank” sessions, and a good chance of catching a big bass.

Bass FMP work

BAC has pushed to prioritise work on Alternative Harvest Strategies so that there is an alternative to following science advice on how to kill the most bass possible over time.  We have also asked to start work on how to incorporate social and economic criteria into bass fishery modelling and decision-making so that benefits to coastal communities can be maximised.  These are the most critical parts of the Bass FMP.  But Defra’s prioritisation matrix says they are a low priority, so the BMG cannot work on them.  BAC challenged the prioritisation but was unable to make headway with Defra.

The question now needs to be asked: what has the BMG delivered for recreational sea fishers?  We can’t think of anything.

But Defra has made sure the BMG delivers for commercial fishers: an Authorisation Review was announced before the newly formed BMG had even met and was completed in record time.  By contrast, the Shore Netting Review that Defra promised recreational fishers has been indefinitely delayed because Defra won’t prioritise the legal resource to review it.

ICES scientists’ fishing pressure advice

There are serious problems with the ICES science advice.  In 2025, independent scientists said: 1) the ICES fishing pressure recommendation (“FMSY”) is not precautionary[1]; and 2) if we fish bass at FMSY and there is average recruitment, we should expect to drive the stock down to a dangerously low level (below “Blim”) by 2031[2].

But Defra says the BMG is the wrong forum to raise the quality of the ICES advice.  We can’t see how the BMG can meaningfully provide input into the fishing opportunities negotiations with the EU without recognising the deficiencies in the ICES science advice.

Accountability

Output from BMG subgroups is supposed to go to the BMG for stakeholder approval.  The Terms of Reference say “The BMG will be responsible for reviewing and, if appropriate, approving all task and finish group products and recommendations.”.  And the Bass Authorisation Review report states: “All proposals remain subject to formal decision-making processes led by Defra and the BMG.”

However, the MMO has been instructed to start implementing three recommendations from a BMG subgroup, without the BMG having approved them.  This cuts directly across the mandate of the BMG.

This raises the question: what is the point of the BMG?  Is it just for show?  To allow the “stakeholder” box to be ticked?

[1] “The ICES MSY approach to reference point estimation is not precautionary” – Winker et Al 2025

[2] “Effets de l’augmentation des plafonds de captures sur les stocks de bar nord et sud” – Ifremer, December 2025.

The official advice to increase bass catches by 98% in 2026 will shrink the bass stock to unsafe levels between now and 2031, say French scientists

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , , , ,
Blog Fishing Opportunities Science Uncategorized

Ifremer, the French national fisheries science institute1, has modelled the Northern bass fishery between 2026 and 2031 and advised that, due to expected lower recruitment2, following the official ICES FMSY advice3 is expected to shrink the bass stock to unsafe levels4.

Bass Angling Conservation has summarised the report in English and provided a brief discussion of Ifremer’s findings. You can read it here and download it.

If you would like to read the original Ifremer report (in French), please click here

Summary of Ifremer Paper 24 Aug 2026Download
  1. the French equivalent of the UK body Cefas
    ↩︎
  2. juvenile bass maturing and joining the mature spawning stock
    ↩︎
  3. aimed at maximising the tonnage of bass killed over time
    ↩︎
  4. under the best recruitment scenario, below Btrigger, the level below which management measures are needed. Under the worst recruitment scenario, below Blim, the level below which recruitment is impaired and the stock may not recover, even if all fishing mortality were to be stopped. ↩︎

The (Bass) Nightmare Before Christmas?

Leave a comment
News Science Uncategorized

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