Posts

  • Home   /   Posts

We’re Not Gonna Take It!

4 Comments on We’re Not Gonna Take It! , , , ,
Were-Not-Gonna-Take-It-BASS-FMPDownload

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.

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

Cornish Fishery Manager – Undemocratic Behaviours?

7 Comments on Cornish Fishery Manager – Undemocratic Behaviours?

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.

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.

It’s the Fish, Stupid!

1 Comment on It’s the Fish, Stupid!

What’s the most important thing for fishery managers to do?  Make sure there are plenty of fish in the sea of course!

But in the bass fishery, the Government instead targets maximising the number of bass killed.  The result of this disastrous policy is a stock size just 30% of what it would be if there were no fishing.  Shocking, isn’t it? 70% of the bass stock has gone.

This policy makes no sense, even for a commercial fishery, since it is well-established that targeting a higher stock size would increase commercial fishing profits.  But when you consider the bass fishery is predominantly a recreational fishery1 that values an abundance of big bass, maximising the number of bass killed is downright nuts!

So surely the Government is planning to fix this with the shiny, new Bass Fishery Management Plan that is now in consultation?  Astonishingly, it isn’t!  It intends to keep maximising the number of bass killed and has suggested it will “seek to review and carry out new research to assess alternative harvest strategies for bass that prioritise societal and ecosystem benefits”.  Note the words “seek to review”.  So they aren’t even making a firm commitment to review this policy, let alone change it.  And guess what? They aren’t going to do anything in the short term, saying they will do this in the “medium to long term”, and we all know what that might mean – kick the can down the road until most people have forgotten about it and then kick it into the long grass.

It’s unacceptable that the Government isn’t making targeting a higher bass stock level a high priority for the Bass Fishery Management Plan.  If you agree, please go to our website and send an email to your MP asking him or her to contact the Fisheries Minister asking for a strong commitment to change this policy quickly.  Your email will be copied to the consultation mailbox, but please also go to the Government’s consultation webpage and submit a reply.

https://bassanglingconservation.co.uk/get-your-voice-heard

If we all act now, we and future generations will reap the benefits of a bigger and more resilient bass stock.
 

Note: 1 by bass put on British family plates, number of participants and economic value  


Bass Angling Conservation – at the heart of the political debate on the future of the bass fishery in Northern Europe.   https://bassanglingconservation.co.uk/

A New Harvest Strategy for Bass

Leave a comment

The Government’s Joint Fishery Statement included two key goals that are at the heart of world class fisheries management:

  1. Protect and improve our fish stocks; and
  2. Manage fish stocks to maximise the benefit to coastal communities.

So what bass stock level will maximise benefits to coastal communities?

One thing is certain, Maximum Sustainable Yield (“MSY”), which maximises only the tonnage of bass that is killed and sold, is not the answer.

  • MSY is recognised by scientists as being economically inferior to the principle of Maximum Economic Yield, so an MSY policy will not maximise benefits.
  • We have seen very clearly the result of using MSY for bass – a disastrous stock crash from which the stock is making a very slow recovery.  Coastal communities are still paying a heavy price for this mismanagement.

Defra has now shared its preliminary thinking on the Bass Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”) and we are very pleased to see that it includes the goal of maximising the benefits of bass fishing for local coastal communities.  However, that goal simply cannot be achieved without the right harvest strategy and Defra’s proposals on this front are far too timid.  They propose starting work in three years’ time (2026) on new research to assess alternative harvest strategies, with no plan for adoption or implementation.

The relationships between stock size and socio-economic benefits for coastal communities are complex and it will take scientists several years from 2026 to investigate these and propose an optimised harvest strategy.  It will then take years for future Governments to adopt and implement the harvest strategy and more years again for the fish stock to grow to the optimal size.  At that rate, we will be stuck with the failed MSY approach well into the 2030’s and probably not achieve the optimal stock size until 10 or 15 years after that.  Are we really prepared to fail on a key goal for the bass fishery and coastal communities for the next twenty years or more?  If so, what is the point of the Bass FMP?

We can do better than this by following the enlightened lead of fishery managers in Queensland, Australia.  They are aiming for a final target of 60% of the unfished stock size (as a proxy for Maximum Economic Yield) by 2027, with an interim target of 40-50% of the unfished stock size as a stepping-stone.

We should do the same.  We know that Maximum Economic Yield gives better economic benefits than MSY, so we should aim now for Maximum Economic Yield while the scientists work on providing an optimised harvest strategy within the next 3 years.

So we are asking Defra to be more ambitious in the draft Bass FMP and to recognise the need for concrete, rapid actions:

  • State firmly that we will move from MSY as soon as possible in order to achieve the goal of maximising benefits for coastal communities.
  • Set an interim goal of a bass stock size of 40-50% of the unfished stock size and ask the scientists to provide an interim harvest strategy to achieve this.
  • Ask the scientists to start working now on understanding the relationships between stock size and socio-economic benefits for coastal communities.
  • Set a date within the next 3 years for adopting a final harvest strategy aimed at maximising benefits for coastal communities.

Let’s put the Bass FMP firmly on track to deliver:

  • a more resilient bass stock that can cope with bad years when fewer young fish survive to maturity.
  • a higher Catch Per Unit of Effort for commercial fishers (so less fuel and time expended) and recreational fishers (fewer “blanks” and more bass per session).
  • higher commercial yields per fish (since the average fish size will be bigger).
  • more of the very big fish that recreational fishers love to catch.