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.