IN MEMORy of captain derek goodwin - mbe. 1926 - 12/12/24.
cfsa conservation officer and a true gentleman
Many thanks to Robin Bradley for the wonderful Eulogy below.....
Credit to Malcom Gilbert for this photo...
Credit to Malcom Gilbert for this photo...
Derek eulogy
Derek was a keen sea angler. He invested a huge amount of time in furthering the
cause of recreational angling, and in particular, highlighted the need to protect bass
from excessive commercial pressure. He served as Conservation Officer for the
Perranporth Sea Angling Club and the Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers, and was
made a life member of both.
He was awarded the John Leballeur Conservation Award by the Bass Anglers
Sportfishing Society twice in recognition of his many years of work on juvenile bass
sampling in Cornwall.
A chance finding of part of a tag in one of the bass he caught led to Derek meeting
Donovan Kelley, and, as Derek put it, his life changed forever. With encouragement
from Donovan, and from Dr Pam Tompsett from the Helford Marine Conservation
Group, Derek began sampling juvenile bass with seine nets on the Helford in 1994.
This work continues to this day, and has produced a unique and much-valued 30-
year time series of data about juvenile bass populations on the Helford, and later the
Fal. This data has been used in scientific research on the causes of good and bad
year classes of bass, and has recently been considered for inclusion in the annual
bass stock assessment. I know that it meant a great deal to Derek to see what his
hard work over all those years had led to. Work for which his MBE was so richly
deserved.
Surveys were always enjoyable with Derek - as much about enjoying the company of
friends, and the beautiful scenery and wildlife, as the sampling work. Through his
surveys, he gave many people the opportunity to experience the fascination of
marine biology in a practical way. Mind you, he kept us on our toes, in his
unassuming way, and his catchphrase “keep that footrope down” still comes to mind
when on surveys. He looked after us too – with his coffee made with brown sugar
(and a drop of something extra in the old days!), and chocolate treats, paid for, as
with everything else, from his own pocket.
He was a character with a twinkle in his eye, and with a liking for a good turn of
speed in his red Skoda – which had to be the Rally Sport version of course!
Derek was well-known, liked and respected by many. He was an inspiration to all
who worked with him over the years, not least because he was still clambering in
and out of boats in his 90’s! It was with great frustration that Derek had to stop taking
part in the surveys in recent years due to physical limitations, but he retained his
good humour, and his mind remained sharp. He always maintained great interest in
the bass work, and would want to know what was happening, or how the bass fishing
was going when we met up for coffee. Mind you, our chats could be a little laboured
at times – given we both only had one good ear!
It was a privilege to have known Derek, and I and many others will miss him greatly.
We will ensure that his name lives on, and the lasting legacy he leaves continues.
Robin Bradley, 3 rd January 2025.
Derek was a keen sea angler. He invested a huge amount of time in furthering the
cause of recreational angling, and in particular, highlighted the need to protect bass
from excessive commercial pressure. He served as Conservation Officer for the
Perranporth Sea Angling Club and the Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers, and was
made a life member of both.
He was awarded the John Leballeur Conservation Award by the Bass Anglers
Sportfishing Society twice in recognition of his many years of work on juvenile bass
sampling in Cornwall.
A chance finding of part of a tag in one of the bass he caught led to Derek meeting
Donovan Kelley, and, as Derek put it, his life changed forever. With encouragement
from Donovan, and from Dr Pam Tompsett from the Helford Marine Conservation
Group, Derek began sampling juvenile bass with seine nets on the Helford in 1994.
This work continues to this day, and has produced a unique and much-valued 30-
year time series of data about juvenile bass populations on the Helford, and later the
Fal. This data has been used in scientific research on the causes of good and bad
year classes of bass, and has recently been considered for inclusion in the annual
bass stock assessment. I know that it meant a great deal to Derek to see what his
hard work over all those years had led to. Work for which his MBE was so richly
deserved.
Surveys were always enjoyable with Derek - as much about enjoying the company of
friends, and the beautiful scenery and wildlife, as the sampling work. Through his
surveys, he gave many people the opportunity to experience the fascination of
marine biology in a practical way. Mind you, he kept us on our toes, in his
unassuming way, and his catchphrase “keep that footrope down” still comes to mind
when on surveys. He looked after us too – with his coffee made with brown sugar
(and a drop of something extra in the old days!), and chocolate treats, paid for, as
with everything else, from his own pocket.
He was a character with a twinkle in his eye, and with a liking for a good turn of
speed in his red Skoda – which had to be the Rally Sport version of course!
Derek was well-known, liked and respected by many. He was an inspiration to all
who worked with him over the years, not least because he was still clambering in
and out of boats in his 90’s! It was with great frustration that Derek had to stop taking
part in the surveys in recent years due to physical limitations, but he retained his
good humour, and his mind remained sharp. He always maintained great interest in
the bass work, and would want to know what was happening, or how the bass fishing
was going when we met up for coffee. Mind you, our chats could be a little laboured
at times – given we both only had one good ear!
It was a privilege to have known Derek, and I and many others will miss him greatly.
We will ensure that his name lives on, and the lasting legacy he leaves continues.
Robin Bradley, 3 rd January 2025.
For those of you unlucky enough to come across suspected illegal activities whilst out fishing, our conservation officer has put together the following document (available below in PDF format) which details what to look out for and who you should report the suspicious activity to. Full details are available to read by clicking on the links provided within the document. Thank you Robin
| reporting_of_suspected_fishing_offences_in_cornwall.pdf |
Following on from the announcement regarding possible restrictions to the Pollack fishing, here is a link to the study being undertaken by the University of Plymouth. plymouth.ac.uk/news/study-furthers-aim-of-offering-new-insights-into-pollack-populations?
Many of you will already be aware of the formal public consultation on proposed ammendments to existing Commercial and Recreational netting permits being held by Devon & Severn IFCA which runs from 1st December 2023 to 19th January 2024.
Link here - www.devonandsevernifca.gov.uk/formal-public-consultation-changes-to-the-netting-permit-conditions
Our conservation officer Robin Bradley has written the following response on our behalf, and we would urge all members to submit their own returns as this proposal could easily be taken up by Cornwall IFCA for our own estuaries.
D&SIFCA public consultation - changes to netting permit conditions
Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers
Dear colleague,
We are writing to submit a response to the formal consultation on proposed changes to D&SIFCA’s netting permit conditions. Our comments are restricted to:
“The opening of a six-month fixed net fishery within Salcombe Estuary (subject to range of management measures”.
We are strongly against these proposed changes. We cannot understand why they are even being considered, when the original byelaw, which stopped netting in Devon estuaries, was so well supported, and the pre-consultation responses were so clearly against any changes. D&SIFCA Officers themselves appear to be of the opinion that these changes are not justified.
If these changes are implemented they will do great damage to stocks of recreationally important fish, such as bass, mullet, gilthead bream and flounder, and the valuable recreational fisheries that depend on them.
The loss of bass for example will be significant. Although this will be greatest during January, when bass could be retained as bycatch, losses will occur throughout the six-month period due to netting mortality. Up to 17 vessels (<6m limit) would be able to carry out netting, and each will be able to deploy 2 x 200m nets. Presumably each net could be redeployed again as soon it has been cleared, multiple times per day.
Bass losses will include juveniles since, as the D&SIFCA study [1] showed, 12% of the bass caught using a 100mm net were undersized (<42cm). This could be even higher, depending on how the net is set. The importance of maximising bass recruitment, in order to boost stocks, which are currently below MSY, is now widely recognised. Bass Nursery Areas (BNAs) were set up to protect juvenile bass. If implemented, these proposals would set a precedent for other areas, and undo all the progress made in this regard, just when measures to increase the protection of juvenile bass are being considered. D&SIFCA’s netting policy would be out of step, and not well aligned with the Bass Fisheries Management Plan (in particular goal 7: ongoing protection of the juvenile and spawning bass stock), including considering a prohibition of fixed netting in BNAs.
The value of mullet and gilthead bream catches is likely to be small. The value for the fisheries in Estuaries (presumably all estuaries in D&SIFCA’s catchment area) was only approximately £46,000 (CO - B&PSC minutes 31.8.23) when the Netting Permit Byelaw came into place. Again, one has to ask why the changes are even being considered, given the damage they will cause to fish and other wildlife for such low financial return. Birds in particular (but potentially seals as well) are at risk of entanglement with nets. This is likely to be increased when netting is conducted at night.
The key drivers for the introduction of the Netting Permit Byelaw in 2018 and the management measures within the Permit Conditions included the protection of bass, the protection of salmon and sea trout, achieving sustainable development of the recreational angling sector and balancing the needs of others catching sea fish species. These proposed changes undermine all of these, and are discriminatory to anglers in prioritising the needs of a small number of commercial fishermen above those of a large number of anglers, who are opposed to these changes. Sea fish are a public resource, and D&S IFCA has a duty to try and find the correct balance between the commercial and recreational sectors.
At the current time fixed netting is prohibited, making it easy to spot illegal activity. If netting is allowed again, it will be much harder for a passing member of the public to tell the difference between legal and illegal activity, and report suspicious activity. Previous netting activity is known to have occurred at night, making it even harder to enforce regulations.
[1] Understanding Mortality of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Small-Scale Inshore Netting
Link here - www.devonandsevernifca.gov.uk/formal-public-consultation-changes-to-the-netting-permit-conditions
Our conservation officer Robin Bradley has written the following response on our behalf, and we would urge all members to submit their own returns as this proposal could easily be taken up by Cornwall IFCA for our own estuaries.
D&SIFCA public consultation - changes to netting permit conditions
Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers
Dear colleague,
We are writing to submit a response to the formal consultation on proposed changes to D&SIFCA’s netting permit conditions. Our comments are restricted to:
“The opening of a six-month fixed net fishery within Salcombe Estuary (subject to range of management measures”.
We are strongly against these proposed changes. We cannot understand why they are even being considered, when the original byelaw, which stopped netting in Devon estuaries, was so well supported, and the pre-consultation responses were so clearly against any changes. D&SIFCA Officers themselves appear to be of the opinion that these changes are not justified.
If these changes are implemented they will do great damage to stocks of recreationally important fish, such as bass, mullet, gilthead bream and flounder, and the valuable recreational fisheries that depend on them.
The loss of bass for example will be significant. Although this will be greatest during January, when bass could be retained as bycatch, losses will occur throughout the six-month period due to netting mortality. Up to 17 vessels (<6m limit) would be able to carry out netting, and each will be able to deploy 2 x 200m nets. Presumably each net could be redeployed again as soon it has been cleared, multiple times per day.
Bass losses will include juveniles since, as the D&SIFCA study [1] showed, 12% of the bass caught using a 100mm net were undersized (<42cm). This could be even higher, depending on how the net is set. The importance of maximising bass recruitment, in order to boost stocks, which are currently below MSY, is now widely recognised. Bass Nursery Areas (BNAs) were set up to protect juvenile bass. If implemented, these proposals would set a precedent for other areas, and undo all the progress made in this regard, just when measures to increase the protection of juvenile bass are being considered. D&SIFCA’s netting policy would be out of step, and not well aligned with the Bass Fisheries Management Plan (in particular goal 7: ongoing protection of the juvenile and spawning bass stock), including considering a prohibition of fixed netting in BNAs.
The value of mullet and gilthead bream catches is likely to be small. The value for the fisheries in Estuaries (presumably all estuaries in D&SIFCA’s catchment area) was only approximately £46,000 (CO - B&PSC minutes 31.8.23) when the Netting Permit Byelaw came into place. Again, one has to ask why the changes are even being considered, given the damage they will cause to fish and other wildlife for such low financial return. Birds in particular (but potentially seals as well) are at risk of entanglement with nets. This is likely to be increased when netting is conducted at night.
The key drivers for the introduction of the Netting Permit Byelaw in 2018 and the management measures within the Permit Conditions included the protection of bass, the protection of salmon and sea trout, achieving sustainable development of the recreational angling sector and balancing the needs of others catching sea fish species. These proposed changes undermine all of these, and are discriminatory to anglers in prioritising the needs of a small number of commercial fishermen above those of a large number of anglers, who are opposed to these changes. Sea fish are a public resource, and D&S IFCA has a duty to try and find the correct balance between the commercial and recreational sectors.
At the current time fixed netting is prohibited, making it easy to spot illegal activity. If netting is allowed again, it will be much harder for a passing member of the public to tell the difference between legal and illegal activity, and report suspicious activity. Previous netting activity is known to have occurred at night, making it even harder to enforce regulations.
[1] Understanding Mortality of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Small-Scale Inshore Netting
For those of you who are concerned about the state of the Bass fishing in Cornwall here is the response the CFSA has submitted to DEFRA regarding the the consultation on the Fisheries Management Plan.
I think you'll agree Robin has put together a well thought out response and raised some very valid points.
I think you'll agree Robin has put together a well thought out response and raised some very valid points.
| cfsa_bass_fmp_response_19.9.23[1].pdf |
A new shout from our conservation officer to those of you who are interested in the fight for a better Bass fishery.
It would appear that the Government has botched the first draft of the Bass Fishery Management Plan. If it goes through unchallenged, we can wave goodbye to the promised world-class bass fishery.
Please visit Bass Angling Conservation to read more and to use our email tool to send an email to your MP and the Fishery Managers telling them what you want.to edit.
Link here - bassanglingconservation.co.uk/get-your-voice-heard
It would appear that the Government has botched the first draft of the Bass Fishery Management Plan. If it goes through unchallenged, we can wave goodbye to the promised world-class bass fishery.
Please visit Bass Angling Conservation to read more and to use our email tool to send an email to your MP and the Fishery Managers telling them what you want.to edit.
Link here - bassanglingconservation.co.uk/get-your-voice-heard
Robin Bradley came across the document below whilst looking through the archives regarding bait digging back in 1992. An interesting read for those of you interested in a piece of history.
| bait_digging_-_dg[1].pdf |
B.A.S.S. (Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society) and S.O.S (Save our Seabass) are asking for our help
with a study being carried out by the University of Exeter. If anyone feels they can help please read the article copied below and follow the links provided. Many thanks to anyone taking part.
Members have asked how they can get involved in bass research; “Developing a bass tissue bank for the study of connectivity between European coastal nursery habitats” is one such opportunity. We are working with scientists from the University of Essex on this fascinating project, which is right at the cutting edge of work on understanding the biology and lifecycle of bass.
How to take part
Here's where we come in. If you are keeping a fish for the table, it would be great if you could keep the head, and pop it into the freezer (in a freezer bag for example). If you are part of a fishing group or local community it would be ideal if the University could coordinate with you to organise collections (please email them if so - as below). The University will arrange for collection / send out return boxes in due course. They will need some basic information to go with the bass head, such as the general area where it was caught (they don’t want your secret bass spot – just the general area please, nearest port / town is fine, county as a minimum if possible), its length (nose to tip of tail), weight if you have it, the time and date would be great too. Even a picture if you can.
By providing these bass heads you will be helping with two research projects and the creation of a tissue bank which can be used by scientists working on future projects.
If you’d like to get involved, please email [email protected] or contact Dr Howard Freeman via Twitter @SeaBassBase
This is not limited to BASS members so please pass this on to anybody who might be interested in helping – the more the merrier.
©Billy Mathew - Let’s help the little guys!
Why we’re helping
Bass recruitment in recent years has not been particularly good. It is as important to maximise this as it is to control fishing effort. With bass there doesn’t seem to be a straightforward relationship between the numbers of mature breeding fish and the number of offspring which end up entering the fishery as adults.
One aspect of this is where and when spawning takes place, and which nursery grounds the tiny fry end up in a couple of months or so after spawning. This is influenced by biological and environmental drivers, such as the timing and location of spawning, winds, currents and temperature. Another aspect is how well each nursery ground supports the growth, development and survival of the juveniles, from the day they arrive to when they leave as adolescents.
And so, it’s important to try to identify the location of the spawning grounds, the nursery areas they feed into, the adult summer feeding areas these supply, which in turn supply the spawning areas. This will allow management measures to be targeted towards protecting those that make the greatest contribution, and restoring areas which may be underperforming.
By using a combination of genetics and micro-chemical analysis, it will be possible to determine how similar fish from different areas are, and where each fish lived, what it ate, and when it moved from area to area.
with a study being carried out by the University of Exeter. If anyone feels they can help please read the article copied below and follow the links provided. Many thanks to anyone taking part.
Members have asked how they can get involved in bass research; “Developing a bass tissue bank for the study of connectivity between European coastal nursery habitats” is one such opportunity. We are working with scientists from the University of Essex on this fascinating project, which is right at the cutting edge of work on understanding the biology and lifecycle of bass.
How to take part
Here's where we come in. If you are keeping a fish for the table, it would be great if you could keep the head, and pop it into the freezer (in a freezer bag for example). If you are part of a fishing group or local community it would be ideal if the University could coordinate with you to organise collections (please email them if so - as below). The University will arrange for collection / send out return boxes in due course. They will need some basic information to go with the bass head, such as the general area where it was caught (they don’t want your secret bass spot – just the general area please, nearest port / town is fine, county as a minimum if possible), its length (nose to tip of tail), weight if you have it, the time and date would be great too. Even a picture if you can.
By providing these bass heads you will be helping with two research projects and the creation of a tissue bank which can be used by scientists working on future projects.
If you’d like to get involved, please email [email protected] or contact Dr Howard Freeman via Twitter @SeaBassBase
This is not limited to BASS members so please pass this on to anybody who might be interested in helping – the more the merrier.
©Billy Mathew - Let’s help the little guys!
Why we’re helping
Bass recruitment in recent years has not been particularly good. It is as important to maximise this as it is to control fishing effort. With bass there doesn’t seem to be a straightforward relationship between the numbers of mature breeding fish and the number of offspring which end up entering the fishery as adults.
One aspect of this is where and when spawning takes place, and which nursery grounds the tiny fry end up in a couple of months or so after spawning. This is influenced by biological and environmental drivers, such as the timing and location of spawning, winds, currents and temperature. Another aspect is how well each nursery ground supports the growth, development and survival of the juveniles, from the day they arrive to when they leave as adolescents.
And so, it’s important to try to identify the location of the spawning grounds, the nursery areas they feed into, the adult summer feeding areas these supply, which in turn supply the spawning areas. This will allow management measures to be targeted towards protecting those that make the greatest contribution, and restoring areas which may be underperforming.
By using a combination of genetics and micro-chemical analysis, it will be possible to determine how similar fish from different areas are, and where each fish lived, what it ate, and when it moved from area to area.
The MMO are holding some stakeholder events as part of the development of the Channel demersal non-quota species Fisheries Managment Plan.
The attached list of dates (see pdf attachment in next post) includes in person sessions at Falmouth on 7.3.22 and Looe on 9.3.22 which have been arranged with recreational fishers in mind.
There are also online events on these dates, and two others.
The attached list of dates (see pdf attachment in next post) includes in person sessions at Falmouth on 7.3.22 and Looe on 9.3.22 which have been arranged with recreational fishers in mind.
There are also online events on these dates, and two others.
- Monday 20th Febuary 4-6pm
- Wednesday 22nd Febuary 4-6pm
- Tuesday 7th March 4-6pm
- Thursday 9th March 4-6pm
Fisheries Management Plan meeting dates
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../FMP_Dates...
The link above provides the times and locations of a roadshow of face to face engagement sessions as the first steps towards defining a fisheries management policy for non quota species on the south coast takes place.
The species included are:
Turbot
Brill
Grey gurnard
Red gurnard
Tub gurnard
Lesser spotted dogfish
Smoothound
Squid
Cuttlefish
Octopus
Red mullet
Pouting
John dory
Lemon sole
It’s vitally important that we get as much attendance at as many of the events as possible.
This is relevant to anglers from shore and boat, charter skippers, tackle shop owners and anyone with business
or recreational interests in the recreational sector.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../FMP_Dates...
The link above provides the times and locations of a roadshow of face to face engagement sessions as the first steps towards defining a fisheries management policy for non quota species on the south coast takes place.
The species included are:
Turbot
Brill
Grey gurnard
Red gurnard
Tub gurnard
Lesser spotted dogfish
Smoothound
Squid
Cuttlefish
Octopus
Red mullet
Pouting
John dory
Lemon sole
It’s vitally important that we get as much attendance at as many of the events as possible.
This is relevant to anglers from shore and boat, charter skippers, tackle shop owners and anyone with business
or recreational interests in the recreational sector.
| fmp_dates.pdf |
A report appeared on the Wild Nature on the Roseland facebook page www.facebook.com/groups/470530696663868 on January 27th 2023 regarding the above pictures. Many thanks to Mr William Barnicoat for allowing us to share the images. There were around 15 Cormorants entangled in the meshes some of which were freed, but many perished. The offending net will be collected by a volunteer group www.facebook.com/search/top?q=ghostnetbusters%20aldfg%20recovery
It is most worrying that this gill net seems to have been set in a Special Protection Area falmouth-bay-to-st-austell-bay-spa.pdf and is an area that has restrictions regarding the use of gill nets.
Anyone coming across anything like this should report their findings to Simon Cadman at IFCA (details below)
If there are animals dead in the meshes then they should also contact the Cornwall Wildlife Trust www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/what-we-do/our-conservation-work/at-sea/marine-strandings-network Telephone 0345 2012626
It is most worrying that this gill net seems to have been set in a Special Protection Area falmouth-bay-to-st-austell-bay-spa.pdf and is an area that has restrictions regarding the use of gill nets.
Anyone coming across anything like this should report their findings to Simon Cadman at IFCA (details below)
If there are animals dead in the meshes then they should also contact the Cornwall Wildlife Trust www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/what-we-do/our-conservation-work/at-sea/marine-strandings-network Telephone 0345 2012626
Several of you have been expressing concern regarding the activities of the inshore commercial fishing community. If anyone thinks that they have witnessed potentially illegal activity then they should contact Simon Cadman, Cornwall IFCA:
Simon says that if anyone wishes to report a fishing incident, they may phone our office which has an answerphone for out of hours calls: 01736 336842. Alternatively, email [email protected] . Reports, including any relevant photos are most welcome.
Simon says that if anyone wishes to report a fishing incident, they may phone our office which has an answerphone for out of hours calls: 01736 336842. Alternatively, email [email protected] . Reports, including any relevant photos are most welcome.
Robin Bradley has been involved in the ongoing surveys of juvenile bass in the Fal and Helford estuaries (and Camel) and has produced a very comprehensive report on the findings.
Since 2021 this report has been produced by Robin Bradley in conjunction with, and based on
the templates previously used by, Derek Goodwin. It is based on information collected in a
voluntary capacity by a team of voluntary workers, to improve the understanding of the status
of juvenile bass within the Fal and Helford Marine SAC (and recently the Camel estuary).
It is intended that all the information in this, and previous reports is freely available to others
including research workers and students, and issued to various individuals, groups and
authorities. These include the Helford Marine Conservation Group, Duchy of Cornwall,
Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, CEFAS, DEFRA, Universities,
Environment Agency, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Natural England, Cornwall Wildlife Trust,
Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing
Society.
These reports continue to be dedicated to the memory of the late Donovan Kelley MBE,
whose bass research over many years laid the foundations for these investigations, and the
conservation of bass.
Also to the memory of the late John Pendarves Bridger, a key founder worker for these bass
studies, and a colleague of Donovan Kelley.
A copy of the report is available to download below.
Since 2021 this report has been produced by Robin Bradley in conjunction with, and based on
the templates previously used by, Derek Goodwin. It is based on information collected in a
voluntary capacity by a team of voluntary workers, to improve the understanding of the status
of juvenile bass within the Fal and Helford Marine SAC (and recently the Camel estuary).
It is intended that all the information in this, and previous reports is freely available to others
including research workers and students, and issued to various individuals, groups and
authorities. These include the Helford Marine Conservation Group, Duchy of Cornwall,
Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, CEFAS, DEFRA, Universities,
Environment Agency, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Natural England, Cornwall Wildlife Trust,
Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing
Society.
These reports continue to be dedicated to the memory of the late Donovan Kelley MBE,
whose bass research over many years laid the foundations for these investigations, and the
conservation of bass.
Also to the memory of the late John Pendarves Bridger, a key founder worker for these bass
studies, and a colleague of Donovan Kelley.
A copy of the report is available to download below.
| bass_investigations_2022.pdf |
Some reading matter here from our Conservation Officer Robin Bradley.
This has been produced in anticipation of the introduction of the new fisheries management plan for Bass.
How do your own fishing experiences compare with his? Do you have anything you would like to share or that you could add to the general pool of information? The bigger the response from recreational angling, the better the chances are to help control the overfishing from the commercial sector.
This has been produced in anticipation of the introduction of the new fisheries management plan for Bass.
How do your own fishing experiences compare with his? Do you have anything you would like to share or that you could add to the general pool of information? The bigger the response from recreational angling, the better the chances are to help control the overfishing from the commercial sector.
| standard_of_bass_angling_in_cornwall.pdf |
|
|
Some interesting information regarding the Trevose Box published in 2021
It appears to be pretty convincing that the creation of this box was directly related to the serious decline of founder fishing in the Camel - before 2005 there were still good numbers of 2 lb plus flounder in the river but after 2005, there was a very notable decline in both numbers and size. Trawlers target the edges of the box before it opens and that may well coincide with the flounder spawning ground. It’s also interesting that the Covid pandemic lockdowns coincided with reduced fishing pressure (as markets were shut) and consequently the camel flounder fishing improved last year. Whether this is a direct link is unproven but it makes you wonder. |
An angler can't take one bass home for tea but that boat a few yards away can take1300kg
Thank you George!
What a betrayal!
George Eustace explained on Spotlight this week why he has favoured "low impact" bass gill netting.
In 21016 you will be able to keep no bass or later 1 bass. That's a 100% then 66% decrease on the 3 bag limit.
"Low impact" gill netters will be able to keep 1300kg/month for most of the year! That's a 30% increase!
Something's not quite fair here! Gill nets are the problem not the solution.
Email George and tell him what you think [email protected]
“The recreational sea angling sector has been well and truly screwed over by the politicians. This year, we have had a bag limit of 3 bass. In 2016, whereas, gill netters can now fish during four of the first six months and retain/land up to 1300 kilos in each of those months, recreational anglers have a zero bag limit. For the second half of the year, again whilst gill netters can retain/land 1300 kilos each month, recreational sea anglers are subject to a one bass bag limit. [Defra must have told the Minister that in 2014 only 111 vessels out of 1,331 in the UK managed to catch 1000 kilos of bass in a month, so the vast majority were unaffected by such a limit, yet the Minister has seen fit to increase the limit to 1300 kilos for gill netters, effectively dismissing the scientific advice with similar contempt with which he has treated the recreational sea angling community.
This debacle is not only grossly unfair to recreational sea anglers but even more importantly, the bass resource itself is going to be subjected to far higher levels of fishing mortality than the scientists recommend. In the long term it is a catastrophic outcome for all of us who crave restoration of bass stocks with truly sustainable long term exploitation.”
Malcolm Gilbert CFSA Conservation Officer
Thank you George!
What a betrayal!
George Eustace explained on Spotlight this week why he has favoured "low impact" bass gill netting.
In 21016 you will be able to keep no bass or later 1 bass. That's a 100% then 66% decrease on the 3 bag limit.
"Low impact" gill netters will be able to keep 1300kg/month for most of the year! That's a 30% increase!
Something's not quite fair here! Gill nets are the problem not the solution.
Email George and tell him what you think [email protected]
“The recreational sea angling sector has been well and truly screwed over by the politicians. This year, we have had a bag limit of 3 bass. In 2016, whereas, gill netters can now fish during four of the first six months and retain/land up to 1300 kilos in each of those months, recreational anglers have a zero bag limit. For the second half of the year, again whilst gill netters can retain/land 1300 kilos each month, recreational sea anglers are subject to a one bass bag limit. [Defra must have told the Minister that in 2014 only 111 vessels out of 1,331 in the UK managed to catch 1000 kilos of bass in a month, so the vast majority were unaffected by such a limit, yet the Minister has seen fit to increase the limit to 1300 kilos for gill netters, effectively dismissing the scientific advice with similar contempt with which he has treated the recreational sea angling community.
This debacle is not only grossly unfair to recreational sea anglers but even more importantly, the bass resource itself is going to be subjected to far higher levels of fishing mortality than the scientists recommend. In the long term it is a catastrophic outcome for all of us who crave restoration of bass stocks with truly sustainable long term exploitation.”
Malcolm Gilbert CFSA Conservation Officer
Bass size raised to 42cm from Sept. 1st 2015
| bass__42cm__150702.pdf |
August 2015
Clarification about the latest bass management measures
New Minimum Conservation Reference (MCRS) Size of 42cm (approx. one and three quarter pounds) replaces the existing 36 cm Minimum Landing Size (37.5 cm in Cornwall) as of 1st September 2015.
Over the next few years, the discarding of some fish by commercial fishers that are undersize will be prohibited. All catches of some species will require to be landed and even undersized fish which are below the new MCRS will be counted against quota but not allowed to enter the food chain. This will provide fisheries managers with a more accurate means of assessing fishing mortality and it is hoped will motivate fishermen to take greater steps to avoid catching and killing undersized fish in the first place. This is why the term “Minimum Landing Size” (MLS) is being phased out because with MLS, an offence would be committed if undersized fish are retained.
The 42 cm MCRS will apply to recreational fishing and it will be an offence to be in possession of any bass less than 42cm from 1st September 2015.
Three bass bag limit for recreational fishing.
This is a daily bag limit per angler for recreational fishing applicable to both shore and boat fishing.
So if three people are fishing from a boat recreationally, and they are checked by enforcement officers either at sea or upon return to harbour/slipway and are found to have more than nine bass on board, an offence will have been committed. Likewise, any shore fisherman fishing recreationally will be restricted to retaining a maximum of three bass per day.
Monthly catch limits for commercial fishing vessels.
Each method of fishing (metier) has been designated a monthly catch limit. This IS NOT a quota. Quotas are calculated as a part of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and bass are currently NOT subject to the TAC/quota system.
In Cornwall the two methods that are responsible for most commercially caught bass are gill nets and hook & line. The monthly limit for vessels that catch bass with gill nets is 1000 kilos and for vessels that use hook & line, the limit is 1300 kilos. For vessels
that use both methods, the lower limit for gill nets will apply. Vessels will not be allowed to borrow or trade their monthly catch limits with other vessels.
More info. available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax
These are the facts as I understand them. Any factual inaccuracies are entirely my responsibility and not the responsibility of the CFSA.
A few personal thoughts.
1. Firstly, these measures are nowhere near restrictive enough to meet the scientific advice. See:
http://www.eaa-europe.org/topics/sea-bass/
http://www.eaa-europe.org/topics/sea-bass/ices-advices.html
Scientists have been recommending drastic cuts in landings for three years and the UK commercial landings (official figures) for 2014 were over 1000 tonnes, representing a 30% increase on 2013!
2. A number of commentators have questioned the lack of new increased minimum mesh size legislation correlated with the new 42 cm MCRS. They point out that if commercial netters continue to use 90 mm mesh gill nets and deploy them in close to shore waters where aggregations of sub 42cm bass are found, much of their catch will have to be discarded, hardly conservation! RSA representatives raised this issue with the EU Commission. Their answer was interesting. They point out that for many years they have been subjected to intense criticism by commercial fishing leaders for trying to micro manage fisheries from Brussels. Commercial leaders assure the Commission that fishermen are quite capable at implementing restrictions without detailed micro management since they know the fisheries intimately and have the best interest of the fishery resources at heart. Therefore, the Commission on this occasion have taken industry leaders at their word and have implemented the new MCRS of 42 cm, confident that fishermen will display integrity and will not use mesh sizes that may result in high discards and will avoid fishing in areas where the small immature sub 42 cm bass are found. Personally, I do not share the Commission’s faith. From where I sit, having witnessed decades of fisheries leaders responses to proposed conservation measures for most stocks, I see absolutely no indications whatsoever of any integrity or desire to look after public fishery resources. I sincerely hope the UK will either nationally implement new mesh size legislation or alternatively, IFCAs will urgently look at spatial closures of all areas where aggregations of sub 42 cm bass are found to metiers that do not allow undersized bass to be returned with good survival prospects.
3. The justification for the new 42 cm MCRS as stated by the Government makes astounding reading. Defra’s press release can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-protections-for-sea-bass
It includes justification for 42 cm as “giving female bass the chance to grow to an age where they can spawn.”
This is exactly what anglers have been saying for years! (but 42cm doesn’t allow ALL females to reach maturity)
Defra’s Press Release provides a link to:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R1316&from=EN
where a further explanation is provided for increasing the limit to 42 cm. Here I have cut and pasted para 8, 9 & 10.
(8) However, for the stock of sea bass in the Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIIa and VIId to VIIh), the information from ICES assessments indicates that female sea bass reaches first sexual maturity at a size of 42 cm. Catch statistics confirm that fishing and landing sea bass below 42 cm removes juvenile female sea bass at a point in time where they have not yet contributed to the reproduction of the stock. Allowing catching and landing sea bass at a size of less than 42 cm therefore seriously harms the reproductive capacity of this stock, contributing significantly to the overall fishing mortality, and causes a serious threat to the conservation of the sea bass stock. As sea bass stocks in these ICES divisions depend on female sea bass remaining in the sea until they reproduce, it is appropriate to increase the minimum conservation reference size for that species to 42 cm.
(9) Moreover, as maturity appears to be temperature dependant, it is precautionary to include the other northern stock, i.e. in the Celtic Sea and West of Scotland (ICES divisions VIa, VIIb and VIIj), under the same restriction.
(10) It is therefore urgent to take measures in order to prohibit the fishing and landing of sea bass below 42 cm as a protective measure for juvenile sea bass in the two stocks of sea bass identified by ICES: Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIIa and VIId to VIIh) and Celtic Sea and West of Scotland (ICES divisions VIa, VIIb and VIIj). Further delay in providing protection to juvenile sea bass would considerably increase the risk of serious harm to the sea bass stock, contribute significantly to its fishing mortality and accelerate the decline of its biomass.
And just what have recreational sea anglers been saying for at least the last 30+ years???
Precisely what fisheries managers are now spelling out as the rationale for 42cm!
QUESTION. So WHY, and on what basis was the MLS for bass held at the miniscule size of 36 cm for the last 25 years? And before that 32cm? And before that 26 cm ?
ANSWER. There was NO basis whatsoever other than pandering to the commercials who were only ever interested in short term earning opportunities and who vehemently opposed all and any attempts to implement a MLS for the long term well being of the resource.
[Not just for bass either. I have a Fishing News article from 1981 when the EU increased the MLS for cod from 30 cm to 35 cm and what was the response from commercials? They clamoured it was “too much, too soon”]
The truth is that 42 cm is still insufficient. A female bass of 41 cm at start of the spring spawning period will not be a viable spawner. By the time the following annual spawning period arrives, she will be approx. 46 – 48 cm and she will spawn for the first time. IF, with a 42 cm MCRS she is caught during that 12 month period and retained (perfectly legal) she will have been killed BEFORE ever spawning. To ensure all females have at least one spawning, a MCRS of 48 cm (2 lbs – 10 oz) is required. I guess we might get there at the current rate by the year 2040 ??
Clarification about the latest bass management measures
New Minimum Conservation Reference (MCRS) Size of 42cm (approx. one and three quarter pounds) replaces the existing 36 cm Minimum Landing Size (37.5 cm in Cornwall) as of 1st September 2015.
Over the next few years, the discarding of some fish by commercial fishers that are undersize will be prohibited. All catches of some species will require to be landed and even undersized fish which are below the new MCRS will be counted against quota but not allowed to enter the food chain. This will provide fisheries managers with a more accurate means of assessing fishing mortality and it is hoped will motivate fishermen to take greater steps to avoid catching and killing undersized fish in the first place. This is why the term “Minimum Landing Size” (MLS) is being phased out because with MLS, an offence would be committed if undersized fish are retained.
The 42 cm MCRS will apply to recreational fishing and it will be an offence to be in possession of any bass less than 42cm from 1st September 2015.
Three bass bag limit for recreational fishing.
This is a daily bag limit per angler for recreational fishing applicable to both shore and boat fishing.
So if three people are fishing from a boat recreationally, and they are checked by enforcement officers either at sea or upon return to harbour/slipway and are found to have more than nine bass on board, an offence will have been committed. Likewise, any shore fisherman fishing recreationally will be restricted to retaining a maximum of three bass per day.
Monthly catch limits for commercial fishing vessels.
Each method of fishing (metier) has been designated a monthly catch limit. This IS NOT a quota. Quotas are calculated as a part of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and bass are currently NOT subject to the TAC/quota system.
In Cornwall the two methods that are responsible for most commercially caught bass are gill nets and hook & line. The monthly limit for vessels that catch bass with gill nets is 1000 kilos and for vessels that use hook & line, the limit is 1300 kilos. For vessels
that use both methods, the lower limit for gill nets will apply. Vessels will not be allowed to borrow or trade their monthly catch limits with other vessels.
More info. available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fishing-restrictions-issued-for-bass-dicentrarchus-labrax
These are the facts as I understand them. Any factual inaccuracies are entirely my responsibility and not the responsibility of the CFSA.
A few personal thoughts.
1. Firstly, these measures are nowhere near restrictive enough to meet the scientific advice. See:
http://www.eaa-europe.org/topics/sea-bass/
http://www.eaa-europe.org/topics/sea-bass/ices-advices.html
Scientists have been recommending drastic cuts in landings for three years and the UK commercial landings (official figures) for 2014 were over 1000 tonnes, representing a 30% increase on 2013!
2. A number of commentators have questioned the lack of new increased minimum mesh size legislation correlated with the new 42 cm MCRS. They point out that if commercial netters continue to use 90 mm mesh gill nets and deploy them in close to shore waters where aggregations of sub 42cm bass are found, much of their catch will have to be discarded, hardly conservation! RSA representatives raised this issue with the EU Commission. Their answer was interesting. They point out that for many years they have been subjected to intense criticism by commercial fishing leaders for trying to micro manage fisheries from Brussels. Commercial leaders assure the Commission that fishermen are quite capable at implementing restrictions without detailed micro management since they know the fisheries intimately and have the best interest of the fishery resources at heart. Therefore, the Commission on this occasion have taken industry leaders at their word and have implemented the new MCRS of 42 cm, confident that fishermen will display integrity and will not use mesh sizes that may result in high discards and will avoid fishing in areas where the small immature sub 42 cm bass are found. Personally, I do not share the Commission’s faith. From where I sit, having witnessed decades of fisheries leaders responses to proposed conservation measures for most stocks, I see absolutely no indications whatsoever of any integrity or desire to look after public fishery resources. I sincerely hope the UK will either nationally implement new mesh size legislation or alternatively, IFCAs will urgently look at spatial closures of all areas where aggregations of sub 42 cm bass are found to metiers that do not allow undersized bass to be returned with good survival prospects.
3. The justification for the new 42 cm MCRS as stated by the Government makes astounding reading. Defra’s press release can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-protections-for-sea-bass
It includes justification for 42 cm as “giving female bass the chance to grow to an age where they can spawn.”
This is exactly what anglers have been saying for years! (but 42cm doesn’t allow ALL females to reach maturity)
Defra’s Press Release provides a link to:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R1316&from=EN
where a further explanation is provided for increasing the limit to 42 cm. Here I have cut and pasted para 8, 9 & 10.
(8) However, for the stock of sea bass in the Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIIa and VIId to VIIh), the information from ICES assessments indicates that female sea bass reaches first sexual maturity at a size of 42 cm. Catch statistics confirm that fishing and landing sea bass below 42 cm removes juvenile female sea bass at a point in time where they have not yet contributed to the reproduction of the stock. Allowing catching and landing sea bass at a size of less than 42 cm therefore seriously harms the reproductive capacity of this stock, contributing significantly to the overall fishing mortality, and causes a serious threat to the conservation of the sea bass stock. As sea bass stocks in these ICES divisions depend on female sea bass remaining in the sea until they reproduce, it is appropriate to increase the minimum conservation reference size for that species to 42 cm.
(9) Moreover, as maturity appears to be temperature dependant, it is precautionary to include the other northern stock, i.e. in the Celtic Sea and West of Scotland (ICES divisions VIa, VIIb and VIIj), under the same restriction.
(10) It is therefore urgent to take measures in order to prohibit the fishing and landing of sea bass below 42 cm as a protective measure for juvenile sea bass in the two stocks of sea bass identified by ICES: Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea (ICES divisions IVb, IVc, VIIa and VIId to VIIh) and Celtic Sea and West of Scotland (ICES divisions VIa, VIIb and VIIj). Further delay in providing protection to juvenile sea bass would considerably increase the risk of serious harm to the sea bass stock, contribute significantly to its fishing mortality and accelerate the decline of its biomass.
And just what have recreational sea anglers been saying for at least the last 30+ years???
Precisely what fisheries managers are now spelling out as the rationale for 42cm!
QUESTION. So WHY, and on what basis was the MLS for bass held at the miniscule size of 36 cm for the last 25 years? And before that 32cm? And before that 26 cm ?
ANSWER. There was NO basis whatsoever other than pandering to the commercials who were only ever interested in short term earning opportunities and who vehemently opposed all and any attempts to implement a MLS for the long term well being of the resource.
[Not just for bass either. I have a Fishing News article from 1981 when the EU increased the MLS for cod from 30 cm to 35 cm and what was the response from commercials? They clamoured it was “too much, too soon”]
The truth is that 42 cm is still insufficient. A female bass of 41 cm at start of the spring spawning period will not be a viable spawner. By the time the following annual spawning period arrives, she will be approx. 46 – 48 cm and she will spawn for the first time. IF, with a 42 cm MCRS she is caught during that 12 month period and retained (perfectly legal) she will have been killed BEFORE ever spawning. To ensure all females have at least one spawning, a MCRS of 48 cm (2 lbs – 10 oz) is required. I guess we might get there at the current rate by the year 2040 ??
Bass Nursery Area review.
Public Meeting - 10 August 2015, Kingsley Village 7-9 pm.
Bass Nursery Areas were made under a national Statutory Instrument The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990. This piece of legislation currently falls under the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). On 8 July 2015, Defra contacted all ten of the IFCAs in England with a “call for evidence”. This is the first stage in their review of Bass Nursery Area Legislation. Cornwall IFCA has only been managing rivers and estuaries, where all six of our Bass Nursery Areas are, since 2011. We are asking for you to help us in compiling a response to Defra’s questions. Defra has asked that all IFCAs respond by 22 August 2015.
Public Meeting - 10 August 2015, Kingsley Village 7-9 pm.
Bass Nursery Areas were made under a national Statutory Instrument The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990. This piece of legislation currently falls under the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). On 8 July 2015, Defra contacted all ten of the IFCAs in England with a “call for evidence”. This is the first stage in their review of Bass Nursery Area Legislation. Cornwall IFCA has only been managing rivers and estuaries, where all six of our Bass Nursery Areas are, since 2011. We are asking for you to help us in compiling a response to Defra’s questions. Defra has asked that all IFCAs respond by 22 August 2015.
See which prospective Parliamentary candidates responded to the CFSA questionnaire and see what those who did respond, had to say:
| truro_&_falmouth_constituency_(1).doc |
| north_cornwall__constituency.doc |
| camborne_&_redruth__constituency.doc |
| st_ives_constituency.doc |
| south_east_cornwall_constituency.doc |
"Essentially, it is nothing short of miraculous that we still have a few bass of 5, 6, 7, lbs and larger, given the huge proportions of young immature bass that are removed." Malcolm Gilbert.
Below you can read the rest of Malcolm Gilbert's report-it makes really fascinating reading. Things seem to be swinging in favour of conservation, sustainable commercial line fishing and recreational sea angling -so thanks to Malcolm for the immense amount of work he is doing on our behalf.
Below you can read the rest of Malcolm Gilbert's report-it makes really fascinating reading. Things seem to be swinging in favour of conservation, sustainable commercial line fishing and recreational sea angling -so thanks to Malcolm for the immense amount of work he is doing on our behalf.
| cfsa_conservation_officer_report_agm_2015.pdf |
Pot Bait! How much would these have been worth to the Recreational Sea Angling sector
Malcolm Gilbert has a vast knowledge of conservation issues but he can also catch fish
| conservation_officer_report_cfsa_agm_25th_jan.pdf |
Below you will find the contact details of all the IFCA committee members and your local MPs
| cornwall_ifca_and_mp_contact_details.doc |
To all sea anglers.
Recent press reports of sea birds being washed up dead and of birds being tangled in mono netting have substantially raised the level of debate within the Marine Management Organisation, Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority and Police circles.
If you come across numbers of dead sea birds or witness nets being hauled with dead sea birds, please do your best to obtain photographic evidence and note as many details as possible such as location, date, exact time, description of boat, any registration numbers and names/addresses of any other witnesses.
Please submit your evidence to the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA) at St Clares Offices, St Clares Street, Penzance, TR18 3QW Tel: 01736 336842.
Please also keep the CFSA informed of any reports you make to the Cornwall IFCA, or if you prefer, the CFSA is happy to do this on your behalf and also ensure reports and evidence are additionally circulated to: Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Natural England and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds.
Please contact Malcolm Gilbert, CFSA Conservation Officer, Tel: 01736 797253.
[email protected]
Recent press reports of sea birds being washed up dead and of birds being tangled in mono netting have substantially raised the level of debate within the Marine Management Organisation, Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority and Police circles.
If you come across numbers of dead sea birds or witness nets being hauled with dead sea birds, please do your best to obtain photographic evidence and note as many details as possible such as location, date, exact time, description of boat, any registration numbers and names/addresses of any other witnesses.
Please submit your evidence to the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA) at St Clares Offices, St Clares Street, Penzance, TR18 3QW Tel: 01736 336842.
Please also keep the CFSA informed of any reports you make to the Cornwall IFCA, or if you prefer, the CFSA is happy to do this on your behalf and also ensure reports and evidence are additionally circulated to: Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Natural England and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds.
Please contact Malcolm Gilbert, CFSA Conservation Officer, Tel: 01736 797253.
[email protected]
Do you want to help stop the decimation of our bass and other inshore fish stocks by this kind of inshore netting -do you want to be able to go to a mark and know it will be possible to fish without finding nets all around you-if you do, read Malcolm Gilbert's letter below.
Immediately below you can see what we mean by inshore Netting! This actually shows the Environment Agency removing an illegal net in Gerrans Bay.
Immediately below you can see what we mean by inshore Netting! This actually shows the Environment Agency removing an illegal net in Gerrans Bay.
An angler(me) in the process of losing tackle on nets set so close to the shore by the boat in the photo that I was unable to fish.
RECREATIONAL SEA ANGLING COMMUNITY OPPOSE NETS.
Ask any group of sea anglers around the County what their biggest gripe is and inshore netting will consistently be at the top of their concerns. Recreational Sea Anglers and many of the businesses that are reliant on sea angling, are making their views known through a Petition being run by the CFSA throughout the County’s fishing tackle shops and other venues.
Gill netting in its various forms is frequently held out as an environmentally friendly fishery. It has even been described as a ‘sustainable’ method simply because unlike bottom towed gears it doesn’t tear up the sea bed. Almost all negative reports relate to accidental catches of birds and mammals, the latest article ending with: “Gillnet by catch – the sleeping giant of seabird threats – must now be tackled with the utmost urgency." can be found at: http://www.fishnewseu.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10429:gillnet-peril-revealed&catid=46:world&Itemid=145
Modern mono and multi monofilament netting only became available in the mid 1970’s and has revolutionised commercial fishing across the planet. It is arguably the single most significant gear development that has contributed to improved, but unsustainable, landings of many species during the last quarter of the 1900’s. The ‘bonanza’ mentality that accompanied the eradication of spurdogs and port breaking record landings of pollack and ling from wrecks during the 1980’s illustrate clearly how mono gear has played a key role in overfishing. Whilst many environmental organisations point to the relative invisibility of the gear as being responsible for horrendous by catch of birds and mammals, surprisingly few commentators have drawn attention to the damage inflicted upon the target species – fish stocks, for the very same reasons.
Recreational sport anglers, as direct user stakeholders of many fishery resources, know only too well of the contribution to overfishing that these new gears have made and would like to see far greater restrictions applied to their use.
As a starting point the CFSA seeks protection from netting in our estuaries and shallow close to shore waters.
The CFSA is organising a Petition to present to the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (was the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee) later in the year.
The Petition will be available for signing throughout the county in tackle shops by early/mid July and will request the prohibition of all entanglement, enmeshing and surround netting in Cornish waters inside the ten metre depth contour as per Chart Datum [Exemptions: netting for scientific purposes, taking of salmonids as licenced by E.A., netting for sandeels with mesh size no greater than 20 mm, use of landing net to land fish caught with hook and line.]
This will provide protection for our estuaries and beaches. Potting and hook and line fishing (recreational and commercial) would not be affected.
The Petition will be available at as many of the County’s tackle shops as are willing to host the petition (approx. 50) and other venues where anglers, bird watchers, divers and anyone with concerns for marine wildlife may sign it.
If close to shore netting is an issue for you, this is an opportunity to do more than moan. We need as many as possible to sign the petition and send as powerful a message as possible to the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA). The IFCA is publicly funded, so take this opportunity to have your say.
It is time for those who manage our fisheries to recognise that our marine environment, including marine fishery resources, are a societal heritage and the entire management regime is in dire need of a cultural mindset change that places the wellbeing of fishery resources ahead of short term commercial fishing interests.
Recreational angling is far more than a fool on one end of a rod with a worm on the other. It is socially important for tens of thousands of the county’s residents and tourists whose quality of life has been adversely impacted by reduced availability of fish. Recreational Sea Angling also supports many hundreds of livelihoods that depend on the activity and the county’s fishery resources.
Background and Context.
Of all the topics that recreational sea anglers express concerns about, diminishing fish stocks and gill nets are at the top of the list.
A fisheries official once said that a dead fish = a dead fish and it matters not one jot whether the fish was caught by a seal, net, trawl, sea bird, commercial hook and line or an angler. In so far as a biological scientist ONLY requires accurate fishing mortality data, the official was technically correct. However, the statement was disingenuous and mischievously avoided the crucial issue of which method has the most potential to exert the greatest damage to fish stocks. Whether one tonne of mackerel is taken by the handline fleet or a pelagic trawler, it still represents one tonne of dead mackerel. But such a naïve statement overlooks the fact that given the right circumstances, with a large aggregation of mackerel (and fish have a habit of shoaling!) the quantity of mackerel that can be removed by a pelagic trawler exceeds that which a fleet of handliners can take by a mind numbing margin!
And so it is with mono netting. Where an aggregation of fish occur, mono netting that currently enjoys no restrictions on linear length, has the capability of removing far larger catches than hook and line. There have been numerous instances of individual vessel hauls of 1000+ bass in mono gear. Try and find a commercial handliner who has caught that many bass in a day, let alone an angler!
Nets are frequently deployed close enough to the shore to cause entanglement with shore angler’s lines. However, gill netting ‘interferes’ with recreational sea angling (RSA) in many other ways. If a bay or cove has nets deployed at either or both ends, or indeed in some cases entire coves or bays are closed off with netting, even though the netting may be well outside of casting range, the passage of fish is interrupted so that anglers are denied access to fish. Ultimately, the proliferation of netting and resultant decline of stocks is the main issue with recreational angling. Wrecks and reefs festooned with gill netting, including some discarded nets that ghost fish) prevent recreational anglers [as well as commercial hook and line fishers] drifting across them as their lines will become snagged and the effectiveness of wreck netting results in far less fish available for all hook and line fishing whether by recreational anglers or commercials who use hook and line to land the highest quality fish achieving best prices for the county’s fishery resources.
The evidence that modern gill netting has had a massive impact on marine fishery resources, especially inshore, is overwhelming. This indisputable fact must form the very basis of any consideration of changes to current legislation.
Mono gill netting arrived in the UK in the early 1970’s, and was so effective that it rapidly became selected as the dominant metier for much of the inshore fleet so that by the early 1980’s, its deployment was widespread for a large number of fisheries/species. Some older fishermen were extremely concerned at the remarkable catching power of the gear.
To illustrate this phenomena here are extracts from the annual report of the then Chief Fisheries Officer to Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee in 1983.
Item 3
Gill netting
1983 began exceptionally well, with Newlyn based netters making very heavy landings of dogfish (Spurdogs). By the end of the first week of January daily landings had peaked to 60 tonnes. By this time the fleet had more than doubled, resulting in several days landings exceeding 60 tonnes. (note: by 2001 total dogfish landings in Newlyn were less than 100 tonnes annually)
Early in March, the dogfish shoals finally dispersed but fine weather allowed netters to change to wreck fishing. Hauls of ling & pollack often reached 5 tonnes. Offshore wrecks produced catches in excess of 9 tonnes.
Item 5
Long lining.
This method cannot compete with the catching power of nets, particularly on dogfish shoals, and, when able, owners are changing to gill netting.
Commercial bass handliners were so concerned at the potential for mono netting to be deployed in areas where bass traditionally agregated that a bylaw was introduced to protect the Manacles and Runnelstones reefs with bylaw Mesh of Nets in Parts of District which can be found on page 14 at:
http://www.cornwall-ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Misc/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_booklet.pdf
There are a number of reasons that mono gillnetting is so successful. Firstly, unlike hook and line fishing that require fish to be feeding, nets can catch fish whether they are feeding or not. Fish, just like other animals do not feed 24/7. One of the best illustrations of this is the spurdog fishery that prior to arrival of mono netting was a long line fishery. Even fish like spurdog (regarded as voracious feeders) have non-feeding periods. When this fishery was prosecuted with long lines, the skippers, having located shoals would initially try a hand line because they knew that to shoot their gear on dogs that were not feeding would be an entire wasted effort. Many fish will successfully remove baits from hooks without being captured (ask any fisherman who has been long lining and gutted the catch and they will tell you that they frequently find numerous baits in the stomach which shows that the fish successfully worked down the line of hooks before eventually becoming captured). A hook without bait does not catch fish and so long lining has a degree of built in inefficiency that prevents the sort of catch rates that can be achieved with gill nets.
The costs & labour of obtaining and preparing bait for long lining is a significant factor in whether to fish or not. The effort and cost has to be balanced against the prospects for weather, since there is no point in hand baiting say six to ten baskets of lines, only to be kept in harbour the following day as winds freshen. Effectively on an uncertain forecast that in the event turns out to be OK, long liners may loose out. Gill netters on the other hand can respond immediately to fortuitous weather.
Wrecks, prior to mono netting were fished with hook and line (handlines and rod & line) so when mono netting was first deployed on wrecks, the catches were quite extraordinary.
As well as spectacular catches being made on wrecks and on large shoals of spurdogs, inshore mono netting was also revolutionising the targeting of close to shore species such as bass and mullet.
In 1991, Defra (formerly MAFF) published Laboratory Leaflet 69, about Gillnetting. Here are some extracts.
“The first effect of the new materials was to provide fishing opportunities that were not available to those using traditional gear. For example, gill nets could be set on rough ground, which had once been fished by long-lines but could not be fished by trawlers, and drift nets could be used successfully in daylight, giving netsmen more freedom to choose the timing and duration of their fishing trips. The second effect was to attract new, often inexperienced or part time, netsmen into the fisheries, and thus increase exploitation levels on certain stocks.”
“The lower visibility of synthetic materials in the water, compared with twines of natural fibre, is probably largely responsible for the greater effectiveness of modern gill nets.”
“Monofilament nets are thought to be more effective than multifilament nets, principally because they are less visible in the water”
“Synthetic gill nets have proved effective in catching a wide range of species, but one of their major advantages has been to enable fishing in areas where trawling is not possible. Many demersal fish tend to aggregate around features such as wrecks, rocky outcrops and shallow sand banks; gill nets can be fished very close to or even right over such features, enabling them to catch fish that are virtually inaccessible to trawls. Although the gear is frequently damaged, the cost of replacement is relatively low. Another advantage of gill nets is that they can be set and left to fish by themselves while the boat is being used to set or haul more nets, thus increasing the catching capacity of even small boats quite considerably.”
In 2002, CEFAS published a technical report (No. 116) on Coastal Fisheries of England & Wales for period 1999- 2001. Here are some extracts:
Under section 10 for Cornwall.
“Since the introduction of synthetic gill and tangle nets that can be used on wrecks and rough ground, local resources are more heavily exploited than in the past.”.
Newlyn: “The inshore fleet set gill nets for demersal fish, sometimes around wrecks, and for pelagic fish such as herring, bass and grey mullet. Boats of between 8-12 m are capable of setting up to 15,000 m of net each.”
St Ives: “Tangle nets are used to catch demersal fish and crustacea, such as lobster, crawfish and spider crabs, with each boat setting up to 20,000 m of net.”
Hayle: “A dozen boats under 10 m are involved in netting, and may work up to 10,000 m of nets each. The nets are set on rough ground where trawl gear cannot be used, for demersal fish such as pollack, ling, turbot, monkfish, rays and cod, together with a valuable catch of spider crab in spring and some bass in summer. Some of the nets are fished virtually the entire year round.”
Conclusions: “In particular, the market has widened, both at home and abroad, making fishing viable for species for which there was little demand twenty years ago. Nevertheless, the trend in inshore fishing since the late-1980s has been of falling catches and profitability, especially in areas which had been dependent on cod and whiting, which have shown a marked decline. Profits fell through rising operational costs against decreasing catches and, for some species, such as plaice, low first sale prices. Fishermen responded by increasing fishing effort, usually in terms of quantity of static fishing gear.”
MAFF Leaflet 69 mentions the low visibility of mono netting. Whereas previous netting materials were deployed mainly in the dark, mono netting can work in daylight especially if the water is at all coloured.
As fish abundance declines the natural reaction of fishermen is to deploy more gear in order to maintain catch levels. Mono gear holds very little water when hauled compared to pre-mono netting so a vessel can carry quantities of gear that in pre-mono type netting would have been too heavy.
Specialised net haulers have been constantly developed and improved since mono gear became so widely used. They now allow quicker recovery of gear in tides that historically would have prevented gear being hauled. This in turn allows more gear to be deployed.
GPS & sonar not only allow fishermen to accurately identify the most productive grounds but also enable boats to locate marker dhans without the need to spend time searching. Gear is consequently able to be instantly located, quickly recovered, overhauled and re-deployed more rapidly.
Nets are at their most efficient when standing vertically from the seabed over slack tide. As lateral tide movement increases, netting may be pushed closer to seabed and prevent less area to passing fish. Thinner twines holds less tide so period of fishing over slack is increased.
Where fish are aggregated, mono netting has the ability to catch large numbers of fish very rapidly. We have already referred to the spurdog fishery where mono netting enabled record catches to be made when compared to those of long lining. Some handline bass fishermen carry a bin or two of mono netting ready to shoot so as to take advantage of any aggregations of bass they come across. They know that should they be fortunate enough to strike a ‘mother lode’, greater numbers of fish can be captured by deployment of mono netting than by hook and line. Splash netting is also an example of where aggregated fish can be capitalised upon with mono netting.
The enormous linear lengths of mono and multi-mono tangle netting that may be deployed can be left unattended due to poor weather and will often result in captured fish dying and being spoiled by lice and crabs so that they have to be discarded. In other parts of the world, not only are there restrictions on linear length of gear but also on soak times and limits on distance that a vessel may be from deployed gear.
The relative cheapness of monofilament gill netting allows fishermen to have within their armoury a range of nets suitable for any opportunity that arises, ready to put aboard and use at short notice. The nature of the modern fishing fleet is one that is geared to respond to wherever the opportunity to earn money arises. Effectively this means that if a vessel makes a good catch of a particular species then the rest of the fleet rapidly responds by putting similar gear aboard, appropriate for that particular fishery. The volumes of gear able to be carried by even relatively small boats results in substantial and instantaneous effort and catches. This approach contributes significantly to the boom and bust scenario.
Perhaps the best evidence of the catching potential of mono gill/tangle netting is demonstrated by a visit to any fishing port. Other than trawling and potting almost all other fisheries are now predominately using these nets. Be it wreck netting for pollack, coal fish, ling and cod, be it tangle netting for rays, turbot, brill, be it inshore gill netting for bass, mullet and increasingly wrasse, be it sole netting which captures large quantities of plaice and flounder or the red mullet fishery which utilizes small meshes and consequently incurs an appalling by-catch of immature fish across a range of species.
If anyone still harbours doubts about the increase in ‘fishing power’ of the under ten metre fleet over recent years, even the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) published a statement at the end of July 2013 which powerfully confirms the point. At http://www.nffo.org.uk/news/nffo_under10_2013.html the NFFO state:
"The fishing power of an under-10m vessel can be many times greater than its counterpart 20 years ago. As with the fleet of larger vessels, technology has not stood still.”
Alleged ‘selectivity’ of gill nets has frequently been held out as a positive aspect of gill netting that has taken the spotlight off any consideration of the negative aspects of the metier. On one occasion during a multi stakeholder meeting, a commercial fishing leader described the ‘selectivity’ of gill netting as a valuable attribute, to which an environmental stakeholder responded with equal enthusiasm that gill nets were indeed selective – they select every size and shape of creature that touches them!
There is no doubt that under specific circumstances, gill nets can be selective, however there are many circumstances where they are not. Twine thickness and suppleness play a key role as does setting ratio in determining the degree of selectivity. Traditionally, 100 metres of stretch netting was set into 66 metres of head and footline. This was known as setting by a third. Some nets are now set by a half so that the 100 metres is set into 50 metres of head and footline. Such ‘slack’ nets are far less selective and nets confiscated by the Environment Agency have contained a selection of fish sized between small mackerel and far larger mullet and bass. Some suppliers are actively promoting setting ratios of 50%.
See: http://www.advancednetting.co.uk/shop/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=76_21_134_136&products_id=310&zenid=m8cjs9lugeqnooijmhv7tdnmj4
The interests of many anglers extends beyond fish and the incidental catches of birds and cetaceans in mono netting are also a major concern.
There is nothing revolutionary with the notion of restricting entanglement netting. All across the globe there are numerous examples of a wide range of restrictions.
One of the most recent is in Australia where gillnetting has been banned in areas of the Northern Territories to allow the sport fishing industry to develop and realise its economic potential which far exceeds that of commercial fishing.
Florida: all entanglement netting is banned in State waters. Florida is now a leading international sport fishing destination.
In the Turks & Caicos Islands, a British protectorate, all trawling and netting is prohibited in favour of hook & line.
In Scotland they have what is called The inshore fishing monofilament gill net order that prohibits the use of mono gill nets inside 6 miles.
In Massachusetts, exploitation of striped bass is restricted to hook & line only.
The core issue is that our oceans and fish stocks are commonly owned societal resources with a wide variety of uses and benefits. Society needs to consider the full range of activities and their socio-economic benefits on an informed basis in order to determine future policies. RSA is one of the uses, and recent studies nationally and in the SW, show RSA is big business. Almost a quarter of a million residents of the SW go sea angling*. This includes those who only a few times a year to the most enthusiastic who go a number of times a week. Their expenditure on fishing tackle, specialist clothing/footwear, bait, charter boat trips, travel, boats, trailers, mooring/marina fees, chandlery etc. is almost £200 million* of which £110 million* is spent in the South West. An addition £55 million* is spent in the South West by visiting tourist anglers. That such substantial sums are spent when fish stocks are relatively depleted suggests that if key stocks targeted by anglers can be restored, the potential is enormous. Studies overseas, have shown a direct correlation between improvement in stocks and the number of angling trips/consequential socio-economic benefits.
Much of the close to shore gill netting is targeting bass and the removal of all netting metiers from inside the 10 metre contour (Chart Datum) would provide greater opportunities for the recreational sea angling sector to be developed and sustainable commercial hook and line bass fishing, both of which realise the very best value for the Cornish economy from the sea bass resource.
Reference.
* http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/sites/resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/files/The_Motivation,_Demographics_&_Views_of_SW_Recreational_Sea_Anglers.pdf
Ask any group of sea anglers around the County what their biggest gripe is and inshore netting will consistently be at the top of their concerns. Recreational Sea Anglers and many of the businesses that are reliant on sea angling, are making their views known through a Petition being run by the CFSA throughout the County’s fishing tackle shops and other venues.
Gill netting in its various forms is frequently held out as an environmentally friendly fishery. It has even been described as a ‘sustainable’ method simply because unlike bottom towed gears it doesn’t tear up the sea bed. Almost all negative reports relate to accidental catches of birds and mammals, the latest article ending with: “Gillnet by catch – the sleeping giant of seabird threats – must now be tackled with the utmost urgency." can be found at: http://www.fishnewseu.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10429:gillnet-peril-revealed&catid=46:world&Itemid=145
Modern mono and multi monofilament netting only became available in the mid 1970’s and has revolutionised commercial fishing across the planet. It is arguably the single most significant gear development that has contributed to improved, but unsustainable, landings of many species during the last quarter of the 1900’s. The ‘bonanza’ mentality that accompanied the eradication of spurdogs and port breaking record landings of pollack and ling from wrecks during the 1980’s illustrate clearly how mono gear has played a key role in overfishing. Whilst many environmental organisations point to the relative invisibility of the gear as being responsible for horrendous by catch of birds and mammals, surprisingly few commentators have drawn attention to the damage inflicted upon the target species – fish stocks, for the very same reasons.
Recreational sport anglers, as direct user stakeholders of many fishery resources, know only too well of the contribution to overfishing that these new gears have made and would like to see far greater restrictions applied to their use.
As a starting point the CFSA seeks protection from netting in our estuaries and shallow close to shore waters.
The CFSA is organising a Petition to present to the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (was the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee) later in the year.
The Petition will be available for signing throughout the county in tackle shops by early/mid July and will request the prohibition of all entanglement, enmeshing and surround netting in Cornish waters inside the ten metre depth contour as per Chart Datum [Exemptions: netting for scientific purposes, taking of salmonids as licenced by E.A., netting for sandeels with mesh size no greater than 20 mm, use of landing net to land fish caught with hook and line.]
This will provide protection for our estuaries and beaches. Potting and hook and line fishing (recreational and commercial) would not be affected.
The Petition will be available at as many of the County’s tackle shops as are willing to host the petition (approx. 50) and other venues where anglers, bird watchers, divers and anyone with concerns for marine wildlife may sign it.
If close to shore netting is an issue for you, this is an opportunity to do more than moan. We need as many as possible to sign the petition and send as powerful a message as possible to the Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA). The IFCA is publicly funded, so take this opportunity to have your say.
It is time for those who manage our fisheries to recognise that our marine environment, including marine fishery resources, are a societal heritage and the entire management regime is in dire need of a cultural mindset change that places the wellbeing of fishery resources ahead of short term commercial fishing interests.
Recreational angling is far more than a fool on one end of a rod with a worm on the other. It is socially important for tens of thousands of the county’s residents and tourists whose quality of life has been adversely impacted by reduced availability of fish. Recreational Sea Angling also supports many hundreds of livelihoods that depend on the activity and the county’s fishery resources.
Background and Context.
Of all the topics that recreational sea anglers express concerns about, diminishing fish stocks and gill nets are at the top of the list.
A fisheries official once said that a dead fish = a dead fish and it matters not one jot whether the fish was caught by a seal, net, trawl, sea bird, commercial hook and line or an angler. In so far as a biological scientist ONLY requires accurate fishing mortality data, the official was technically correct. However, the statement was disingenuous and mischievously avoided the crucial issue of which method has the most potential to exert the greatest damage to fish stocks. Whether one tonne of mackerel is taken by the handline fleet or a pelagic trawler, it still represents one tonne of dead mackerel. But such a naïve statement overlooks the fact that given the right circumstances, with a large aggregation of mackerel (and fish have a habit of shoaling!) the quantity of mackerel that can be removed by a pelagic trawler exceeds that which a fleet of handliners can take by a mind numbing margin!
And so it is with mono netting. Where an aggregation of fish occur, mono netting that currently enjoys no restrictions on linear length, has the capability of removing far larger catches than hook and line. There have been numerous instances of individual vessel hauls of 1000+ bass in mono gear. Try and find a commercial handliner who has caught that many bass in a day, let alone an angler!
Nets are frequently deployed close enough to the shore to cause entanglement with shore angler’s lines. However, gill netting ‘interferes’ with recreational sea angling (RSA) in many other ways. If a bay or cove has nets deployed at either or both ends, or indeed in some cases entire coves or bays are closed off with netting, even though the netting may be well outside of casting range, the passage of fish is interrupted so that anglers are denied access to fish. Ultimately, the proliferation of netting and resultant decline of stocks is the main issue with recreational angling. Wrecks and reefs festooned with gill netting, including some discarded nets that ghost fish) prevent recreational anglers [as well as commercial hook and line fishers] drifting across them as their lines will become snagged and the effectiveness of wreck netting results in far less fish available for all hook and line fishing whether by recreational anglers or commercials who use hook and line to land the highest quality fish achieving best prices for the county’s fishery resources.
The evidence that modern gill netting has had a massive impact on marine fishery resources, especially inshore, is overwhelming. This indisputable fact must form the very basis of any consideration of changes to current legislation.
Mono gill netting arrived in the UK in the early 1970’s, and was so effective that it rapidly became selected as the dominant metier for much of the inshore fleet so that by the early 1980’s, its deployment was widespread for a large number of fisheries/species. Some older fishermen were extremely concerned at the remarkable catching power of the gear.
To illustrate this phenomena here are extracts from the annual report of the then Chief Fisheries Officer to Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee in 1983.
Item 3
Gill netting
1983 began exceptionally well, with Newlyn based netters making very heavy landings of dogfish (Spurdogs). By the end of the first week of January daily landings had peaked to 60 tonnes. By this time the fleet had more than doubled, resulting in several days landings exceeding 60 tonnes. (note: by 2001 total dogfish landings in Newlyn were less than 100 tonnes annually)
Early in March, the dogfish shoals finally dispersed but fine weather allowed netters to change to wreck fishing. Hauls of ling & pollack often reached 5 tonnes. Offshore wrecks produced catches in excess of 9 tonnes.
Item 5
Long lining.
This method cannot compete with the catching power of nets, particularly on dogfish shoals, and, when able, owners are changing to gill netting.
Commercial bass handliners were so concerned at the potential for mono netting to be deployed in areas where bass traditionally agregated that a bylaw was introduced to protect the Manacles and Runnelstones reefs with bylaw Mesh of Nets in Parts of District which can be found on page 14 at:
http://www.cornwall-ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Misc/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_booklet.pdf
There are a number of reasons that mono gillnetting is so successful. Firstly, unlike hook and line fishing that require fish to be feeding, nets can catch fish whether they are feeding or not. Fish, just like other animals do not feed 24/7. One of the best illustrations of this is the spurdog fishery that prior to arrival of mono netting was a long line fishery. Even fish like spurdog (regarded as voracious feeders) have non-feeding periods. When this fishery was prosecuted with long lines, the skippers, having located shoals would initially try a hand line because they knew that to shoot their gear on dogs that were not feeding would be an entire wasted effort. Many fish will successfully remove baits from hooks without being captured (ask any fisherman who has been long lining and gutted the catch and they will tell you that they frequently find numerous baits in the stomach which shows that the fish successfully worked down the line of hooks before eventually becoming captured). A hook without bait does not catch fish and so long lining has a degree of built in inefficiency that prevents the sort of catch rates that can be achieved with gill nets.
The costs & labour of obtaining and preparing bait for long lining is a significant factor in whether to fish or not. The effort and cost has to be balanced against the prospects for weather, since there is no point in hand baiting say six to ten baskets of lines, only to be kept in harbour the following day as winds freshen. Effectively on an uncertain forecast that in the event turns out to be OK, long liners may loose out. Gill netters on the other hand can respond immediately to fortuitous weather.
Wrecks, prior to mono netting were fished with hook and line (handlines and rod & line) so when mono netting was first deployed on wrecks, the catches were quite extraordinary.
As well as spectacular catches being made on wrecks and on large shoals of spurdogs, inshore mono netting was also revolutionising the targeting of close to shore species such as bass and mullet.
In 1991, Defra (formerly MAFF) published Laboratory Leaflet 69, about Gillnetting. Here are some extracts.
“The first effect of the new materials was to provide fishing opportunities that were not available to those using traditional gear. For example, gill nets could be set on rough ground, which had once been fished by long-lines but could not be fished by trawlers, and drift nets could be used successfully in daylight, giving netsmen more freedom to choose the timing and duration of their fishing trips. The second effect was to attract new, often inexperienced or part time, netsmen into the fisheries, and thus increase exploitation levels on certain stocks.”
“The lower visibility of synthetic materials in the water, compared with twines of natural fibre, is probably largely responsible for the greater effectiveness of modern gill nets.”
“Monofilament nets are thought to be more effective than multifilament nets, principally because they are less visible in the water”
“Synthetic gill nets have proved effective in catching a wide range of species, but one of their major advantages has been to enable fishing in areas where trawling is not possible. Many demersal fish tend to aggregate around features such as wrecks, rocky outcrops and shallow sand banks; gill nets can be fished very close to or even right over such features, enabling them to catch fish that are virtually inaccessible to trawls. Although the gear is frequently damaged, the cost of replacement is relatively low. Another advantage of gill nets is that they can be set and left to fish by themselves while the boat is being used to set or haul more nets, thus increasing the catching capacity of even small boats quite considerably.”
In 2002, CEFAS published a technical report (No. 116) on Coastal Fisheries of England & Wales for period 1999- 2001. Here are some extracts:
Under section 10 for Cornwall.
“Since the introduction of synthetic gill and tangle nets that can be used on wrecks and rough ground, local resources are more heavily exploited than in the past.”.
Newlyn: “The inshore fleet set gill nets for demersal fish, sometimes around wrecks, and for pelagic fish such as herring, bass and grey mullet. Boats of between 8-12 m are capable of setting up to 15,000 m of net each.”
St Ives: “Tangle nets are used to catch demersal fish and crustacea, such as lobster, crawfish and spider crabs, with each boat setting up to 20,000 m of net.”
Hayle: “A dozen boats under 10 m are involved in netting, and may work up to 10,000 m of nets each. The nets are set on rough ground where trawl gear cannot be used, for demersal fish such as pollack, ling, turbot, monkfish, rays and cod, together with a valuable catch of spider crab in spring and some bass in summer. Some of the nets are fished virtually the entire year round.”
Conclusions: “In particular, the market has widened, both at home and abroad, making fishing viable for species for which there was little demand twenty years ago. Nevertheless, the trend in inshore fishing since the late-1980s has been of falling catches and profitability, especially in areas which had been dependent on cod and whiting, which have shown a marked decline. Profits fell through rising operational costs against decreasing catches and, for some species, such as plaice, low first sale prices. Fishermen responded by increasing fishing effort, usually in terms of quantity of static fishing gear.”
MAFF Leaflet 69 mentions the low visibility of mono netting. Whereas previous netting materials were deployed mainly in the dark, mono netting can work in daylight especially if the water is at all coloured.
As fish abundance declines the natural reaction of fishermen is to deploy more gear in order to maintain catch levels. Mono gear holds very little water when hauled compared to pre-mono netting so a vessel can carry quantities of gear that in pre-mono type netting would have been too heavy.
Specialised net haulers have been constantly developed and improved since mono gear became so widely used. They now allow quicker recovery of gear in tides that historically would have prevented gear being hauled. This in turn allows more gear to be deployed.
GPS & sonar not only allow fishermen to accurately identify the most productive grounds but also enable boats to locate marker dhans without the need to spend time searching. Gear is consequently able to be instantly located, quickly recovered, overhauled and re-deployed more rapidly.
Nets are at their most efficient when standing vertically from the seabed over slack tide. As lateral tide movement increases, netting may be pushed closer to seabed and prevent less area to passing fish. Thinner twines holds less tide so period of fishing over slack is increased.
Where fish are aggregated, mono netting has the ability to catch large numbers of fish very rapidly. We have already referred to the spurdog fishery where mono netting enabled record catches to be made when compared to those of long lining. Some handline bass fishermen carry a bin or two of mono netting ready to shoot so as to take advantage of any aggregations of bass they come across. They know that should they be fortunate enough to strike a ‘mother lode’, greater numbers of fish can be captured by deployment of mono netting than by hook and line. Splash netting is also an example of where aggregated fish can be capitalised upon with mono netting.
The enormous linear lengths of mono and multi-mono tangle netting that may be deployed can be left unattended due to poor weather and will often result in captured fish dying and being spoiled by lice and crabs so that they have to be discarded. In other parts of the world, not only are there restrictions on linear length of gear but also on soak times and limits on distance that a vessel may be from deployed gear.
The relative cheapness of monofilament gill netting allows fishermen to have within their armoury a range of nets suitable for any opportunity that arises, ready to put aboard and use at short notice. The nature of the modern fishing fleet is one that is geared to respond to wherever the opportunity to earn money arises. Effectively this means that if a vessel makes a good catch of a particular species then the rest of the fleet rapidly responds by putting similar gear aboard, appropriate for that particular fishery. The volumes of gear able to be carried by even relatively small boats results in substantial and instantaneous effort and catches. This approach contributes significantly to the boom and bust scenario.
Perhaps the best evidence of the catching potential of mono gill/tangle netting is demonstrated by a visit to any fishing port. Other than trawling and potting almost all other fisheries are now predominately using these nets. Be it wreck netting for pollack, coal fish, ling and cod, be it tangle netting for rays, turbot, brill, be it inshore gill netting for bass, mullet and increasingly wrasse, be it sole netting which captures large quantities of plaice and flounder or the red mullet fishery which utilizes small meshes and consequently incurs an appalling by-catch of immature fish across a range of species.
If anyone still harbours doubts about the increase in ‘fishing power’ of the under ten metre fleet over recent years, even the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) published a statement at the end of July 2013 which powerfully confirms the point. At http://www.nffo.org.uk/news/nffo_under10_2013.html the NFFO state:
"The fishing power of an under-10m vessel can be many times greater than its counterpart 20 years ago. As with the fleet of larger vessels, technology has not stood still.”
Alleged ‘selectivity’ of gill nets has frequently been held out as a positive aspect of gill netting that has taken the spotlight off any consideration of the negative aspects of the metier. On one occasion during a multi stakeholder meeting, a commercial fishing leader described the ‘selectivity’ of gill netting as a valuable attribute, to which an environmental stakeholder responded with equal enthusiasm that gill nets were indeed selective – they select every size and shape of creature that touches them!
There is no doubt that under specific circumstances, gill nets can be selective, however there are many circumstances where they are not. Twine thickness and suppleness play a key role as does setting ratio in determining the degree of selectivity. Traditionally, 100 metres of stretch netting was set into 66 metres of head and footline. This was known as setting by a third. Some nets are now set by a half so that the 100 metres is set into 50 metres of head and footline. Such ‘slack’ nets are far less selective and nets confiscated by the Environment Agency have contained a selection of fish sized between small mackerel and far larger mullet and bass. Some suppliers are actively promoting setting ratios of 50%.
See: http://www.advancednetting.co.uk/shop/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=76_21_134_136&products_id=310&zenid=m8cjs9lugeqnooijmhv7tdnmj4
The interests of many anglers extends beyond fish and the incidental catches of birds and cetaceans in mono netting are also a major concern.
There is nothing revolutionary with the notion of restricting entanglement netting. All across the globe there are numerous examples of a wide range of restrictions.
One of the most recent is in Australia where gillnetting has been banned in areas of the Northern Territories to allow the sport fishing industry to develop and realise its economic potential which far exceeds that of commercial fishing.
Florida: all entanglement netting is banned in State waters. Florida is now a leading international sport fishing destination.
In the Turks & Caicos Islands, a British protectorate, all trawling and netting is prohibited in favour of hook & line.
In Scotland they have what is called The inshore fishing monofilament gill net order that prohibits the use of mono gill nets inside 6 miles.
In Massachusetts, exploitation of striped bass is restricted to hook & line only.
The core issue is that our oceans and fish stocks are commonly owned societal resources with a wide variety of uses and benefits. Society needs to consider the full range of activities and their socio-economic benefits on an informed basis in order to determine future policies. RSA is one of the uses, and recent studies nationally and in the SW, show RSA is big business. Almost a quarter of a million residents of the SW go sea angling*. This includes those who only a few times a year to the most enthusiastic who go a number of times a week. Their expenditure on fishing tackle, specialist clothing/footwear, bait, charter boat trips, travel, boats, trailers, mooring/marina fees, chandlery etc. is almost £200 million* of which £110 million* is spent in the South West. An addition £55 million* is spent in the South West by visiting tourist anglers. That such substantial sums are spent when fish stocks are relatively depleted suggests that if key stocks targeted by anglers can be restored, the potential is enormous. Studies overseas, have shown a direct correlation between improvement in stocks and the number of angling trips/consequential socio-economic benefits.
Much of the close to shore gill netting is targeting bass and the removal of all netting metiers from inside the 10 metre contour (Chart Datum) would provide greater opportunities for the recreational sea angling sector to be developed and sustainable commercial hook and line bass fishing, both of which realise the very best value for the Cornish economy from the sea bass resource.
Reference.
* http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/sites/resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/files/The_Motivation,_Demographics_&_Views_of_SW_Recreational_Sea_Anglers.pdf
| distinguishing_rsa__commercial_fishing.pdf |
Below is the response from the CFSA to Defra regarding the decision to only implement 31 of the 127 Marine Conservation Zones that were proposed. Thanks to Malcolm Gilbert and others for the hours of work spent on this.
The Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers (CFSA) represents more than thirty sea angling clubs and over 1200 of the 25,000 sea anglers across the County of Cornwall .
The CFSA is acutely aware of the deterioration in our marine environment, and anglers, as direct users of fishery resources (limited number of species), are particularly concerned with reduced abundance of fish and how those that remain are represented mainly by younger and smaller individuals.
In principle we wish to see far higher levels of protection for our marine environment and fishery resources and fully accept that arresting the deterioration and restoring fish stocks will require increasingly restrictive management that is long overdue. We believe that short term political popularity is the central reason that has delayed sufficiently restrictive management and now, the pain of rebuilding fishery resources after decades of irresponsible management will be very much more than had sufficient resolve existed in the past.
We are disappointed that only 31 of the 127 proposed MCZs are being taken forward at this time and strongly suspect that the apparent reluctance to include the additional 127 sites and reference areas is an indication that the required resolve to address the deterioration of our marine environment is still lacking. We are also disappointed that management measures for these areas have not been defined at this stage.
As MCZs are selected in order to provide protection of specific flora and fauna and the environment in which they thrive, we see no reason for activities that do not jeopardise or threaten such flora and fauna, to be curtailed.
RSA is amongst the most environmentally friendly and selective of fisheries, that with a large percentage of fish caught being returned alive to the sea, provides the greatest socio-economic benefits for the least environmentally negative impacts.
Malcolm Gilbert
Conservation Officer
The Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers (CFSA) represents more than thirty sea angling clubs and over 1200 of the 25,000 sea anglers across the County of Cornwall .
The CFSA is acutely aware of the deterioration in our marine environment, and anglers, as direct users of fishery resources (limited number of species), are particularly concerned with reduced abundance of fish and how those that remain are represented mainly by younger and smaller individuals.
In principle we wish to see far higher levels of protection for our marine environment and fishery resources and fully accept that arresting the deterioration and restoring fish stocks will require increasingly restrictive management that is long overdue. We believe that short term political popularity is the central reason that has delayed sufficiently restrictive management and now, the pain of rebuilding fishery resources after decades of irresponsible management will be very much more than had sufficient resolve existed in the past.
We are disappointed that only 31 of the 127 proposed MCZs are being taken forward at this time and strongly suspect that the apparent reluctance to include the additional 127 sites and reference areas is an indication that the required resolve to address the deterioration of our marine environment is still lacking. We are also disappointed that management measures for these areas have not been defined at this stage.
As MCZs are selected in order to provide protection of specific flora and fauna and the environment in which they thrive, we see no reason for activities that do not jeopardise or threaten such flora and fauna, to be curtailed.
RSA is amongst the most environmentally friendly and selective of fisheries, that with a large percentage of fish caught being returned alive to the sea, provides the greatest socio-economic benefits for the least environmentally negative impacts.
Malcolm Gilbert
Conservation Officer
Letter from Malcolm Gilbert on behalf of the CFSA to the Fisheries Minister-copies to all Cornish MPs and IFCA
Richard Benyon MP
Minister for Environment, Water and Rural Affairs,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A OAA
16th January 2013.
Dear Mr Benyon,
Re: Minimum landing size and management of bass.
The Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers represents 32 clubs and more than 1200 sea anglers.
This organisation wishes to support current representation by the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society and the Angling Trust for a Minimum Landing Size (MLS) for bass of 48cm. This organisation’s minimum weight for bass is, and has been for many years, two and a half pounds (1.1 kilo) which equates to 48 cm total length, so all our competitions already comply with a MLS of 48cm.
Older members, some of whom have half a century or more of first hand experience fishing for bass with rod & line, have witnessed a significant deterioration in the quality of bass angling. We can not substantiate this ‘scientifically’ as we are not scientists, but neither do we think we are all wrong. We do however have some hard evidence which supports our assertion that the abundance of older larger adult bass is now far less than it was a mere four decades ago.
We believe the ‘case’ for increasing the MLS to 48cm is overwhelming and present that case below.
Management Objective.
The International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) has, in a number of publications about bass, stated there are no specific management objectives for bass. This may be the case for Europe but in the UK we believe management of all marine fishery resources is guided by the following goal. "The overarching aim of fisheries management should be to maximise the return to the UK from sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment." This was a key recommendation from the last Governments Strategy Unit report ‘Net Benefits’ and the recommendation was accepted by the Government in ‘Securing the benefits’ and reconfirmed in the current UK policy document, ‘Fishing 2027’ available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb12780-fisheries2027vision-071001.pdf
We believe such a goal, for our public fishery resources is entirely rational and justified but is most certainly not being delivered in the case of bass with the current profile of exploitation.
Recent history of bass fishery in Cornwall.
A pape published by MAFF Fisheries Lab. Suffolk circa 1982 entitled The bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and its fishery in England & Wales reads: Under Age and Size range of bass in the fishery – page 2, para (d),
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall – Small bass are taken by rod and line, gill nets and seines in estuaries and along sheltered shorelines, but the main fishery takes fish of 45cm upwards by trolling from single-handed boats in tide runs and around reefs.
This statement is unequivocally corroborated by an examination of length distribution data from tagging on the Runnelstones and other inshore locations around the southwest in the 1980’s. (hook & line fishery). Published in MAFF leaflet 75 in 1987.
So it isn’t just recreational anglers anecdotally recollecting that there use to be more and bigger bass; we know with certainty that a mere three decades ago, bass of 48+cm were the backbone of the commercial fishery. In the data published in MAFF leaflet 75, more than 80% of all bass caught by the commercial handliners from the Runnelstones & Portland Race were over 50 cm (1.3 kilos).
However, thirty years later in 2006, when Defra consulted on a proposal for a 45cm MLS for bass (0.95 kilo), commercial lobbying vehemently asserted that if introduced, it would end the commercial bass fishery. Some examples which illustrate the response from commercial fishing spokespersons can be found in a report of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee meeting in Fishing News (weekly commercial fishing paper) when the bass MLS was discussed. One commercial owner/skipper stated, "45cm is unrealistic as we hardly ever catch bass over that size." Another commercial vessel owner agreed and said he knew of very few anglers who ever catch bass over that size.
So in Cornwall, the evidence shows an alarming deterioration in the structure of bass stocks with mature fish of 8+ years of age, far less abundant than they were twenty to thirty years ago.
Restoring the fishery.
Members of this organisation want fisheries managers to do what ever is necessary to restore the abundance of older larger bass and it seems to us that one measure that would contribute towards restoring bass stocks is to increase the current 36 cm (0.52 kilo) MLS (37.5 cm in Cornwall IFCA District waters) so as to reduce fishing mortality upon what are baby immature bass so that each annual cohort is allowed to reach maturity before recruiting to the fishery.
In ICES paper http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/2/346.full.pdf+html?sid=f12699f4-a21a-483d-8153-18d151a82565 page 352 shows a table of fishing mortality levels (F) for the years 1985 to 2004 for bass aged 3 to 7. F can be as high as 0.5.
MAFF Laboratory Leaflet 75, page 22 shows how F is highest at age 5 which is entirely predictable because age 5 is when most bass reach the MLS of 36cm and so recruit to the fishery. F then decreases each year as each cohort is cropped by fishing mortality.
With the current 36 cm mls (37.5 in Cornwall) a cohort of bass starts to be fished as early as age 4 when the fastest growers have reached 36cm and by age 5, all of the cohort will have recruited to the fishery.
In 6th year: 100 subjected to F at 0.40 leaves 60 individuals remaining.
In 7th year: 60 " to F at 0.35 leaves 39
In 8th year 39 " to F at 0.30 leaves 27
In 9th year 27 " to F at 0.25 leaves 20
In 10th year 20 " to F at 0.20 leaves 16
In 11th year 16 " to F at 0.15 leaves 14
Note: In addition to Fishing Mortality (F) there is Natural Mortality which for the purposes of this explanation has been disregarded.
An 11 years old a bass is approximately halfway through its natural life and weighs around 2 kilos (57.5 cm). There are only 14 left from the original 100 BECAUSE THE LOW MLS ALLOWS THEM TO BE TARGETED FOR TWO YEARS AS IMMATURE AND VULNERABLE BABY BASS.
Lets us now see what happens if we run the figures with a higher MLS of 48 cm which equates to an 8 year old weighing approx. 1.1 kilos.
In 9th year: 100 subjected to F at 0.40 leaves 60 individuals remaining.
In 10th year: 60 " to F at 0.35 leaves 39
In 11th year 39 " to F at 0.30 leaves 27
In 12th year 27 " to F at 0.25 leaves 20
In 13th year 20 " to F at 0.20 leaves 16
In 14th year 16 " to F at 0.15 leaves 14
Instead of having just 14 bass (from original 100) at age 11 [2 kilo], we have 27 (almost twice as many) remaining. After the same 6 years of exploitation we have 14 left which at age 14 would weigh approx 3 kilos (65 cm).
Quite what constitutes a really large fecund bass is subjective but if we think in terms of a trophy 10 lb (4.54 kilo) fish, we are far more likely to increase the proportion of such examples with the higher MLS.
Following Defra’s announcement of a Consultation on proposal for 45 cm mls in 2007, CEFAS published this.
"In order to achieve the government’s aim, to increase the number and size of fish in the bass population, it would be necessary to protect more bass from exploitation. This can be done either by reducing fishing pressure on bass overall or by directing fishing away from small to medium sized fish. The 1990 bass management package had the same effect and it succeeded by protecting bass up to 36 cm, allowed more fish to spawn, and achieved a 30-40% higher yield to the fishery for a given level of recruitment."
"We have used the same approach to model the likely effects of a further increase in the size at which bass first recruit to the fishery, based on our current assessment of the bass fishery. This shows that the highest yield per recruit occurs at around 48-50 cm and decreases thereafter, though higher yields could be obtained in some parts of the fishery if effort increased."
The case then for increasing the MLS appears overwhelming so why wasn’t it achieved in 2007?
We believe there were three key reasons.
Short term loss of bass that can be retained (to sell or consume).
Firstly there is the inevitable concern from commercial and some recreational fishers that with their current profile of catches consisting mainly of immature small bass, any increase in the MLS would negatively impact the proportion of bass that would be retainable to sell or eat, in the short term. We understand this concern but would argue that having fished down any stock, in order to restore it, there will be an inevitable period where we need to harvest less over the short term in order to be able to improve long term harvests. With current growth rates of approx 4 cms annually, we believe the short term losses will recover within two or three years, albeit with a shift in the profile of exploitation away from gill netting and trawling for immature bass in close to shore waters and estuaries, towards hook & line fishing targeting larger adult fish that with the combined greater mass per recruit and value per kilo, will be of significant increased value to commercial fishers. More and larger bass will also stimulate higher levels of recreational fishing with a consequential increase in the socio-economic impacts to coastal areas.
The CEFAS data for Newlyn in 2005 shows a 38 cm bass with a mass of 590 g was worth £4.92 per kilo earning (at first sale) = £2.90 per individual fish. After three years of growth the individual would be 50 cm with a mass of 1.3 kilo and attract £6.48 per kilo earning £8.42 per individual. This represents a massive 290% increase in value per fish in just three years.
We submit that the sea bass resource, as with all fishery resources, are public societal resources and prioritising access to the bass resource for hook and line fishing – commercial and recreational - generates the best return for the least negative environmental impact. Shifting the profile of commercial exploitation away from small immature fish towards older, larger and significantly more valuable fish will generate greater revenue from commercial fishing. Furthermore, an improved abundance of older larger bass will stimulate recreational participation. The economic impacts within our coastal communities from recreational sea angling, have historically been overlooked but recent research shows that the combination of both resident and tourist sea angling results in many £millions of expenditure. Numerous examples exist throughout the globe where restoration of previously depleted fish stocks have resulted in enormous increases in the number of fishing trips directed at those species with consequential increased angling related expenditure.
Concerns that vessels from other member states will benefit from UK stock enhancement.
The second concern is that French vessels will still be able to target and retain bass within the existing EU MLS regime of 36cm, so any prospects of UK fishers benefiting from more and larger bass will be thwarted because French vessels will get them before they reach the new UK MLS. We believe these fears are grossly overstated. We do not believe the offshore migration of UK bass stocks is as significant as it used to be. We note that the winter effort and catches of Scottish pair teams in Areas Vll e and Vlld are considerably reduced from what they were 10/15 years ago when records show landings (from the offshore fishery) hit over 60 tonnes into Plymouth in just one week on one occasion. CEFAS research resulted in this advice in their Regulatory Impact Assessment 2006.
"The stock of bass exploited within 0-6 miles of the English Coast is not greatly exploited outside that zone by other member state’s vessels, mainly because of fish behaviour. Fewer than 10% of bass tagged within the UK inshore fishery and reported as recaptured were taken by other countries’ vessels. This suggests that the main benefits of an increased MLS would accrue chiefly to fisheries operating within the UK 6 mile zone."
There are of course no foreign vessels operating within the six mile zone.
Discards.
Fear of increased discards was the third key reason the MLS increase failed seven years ago with the main opposition to the proposed increase being led by North Devon bass trawl fisheries operating in the Bristol Channel. Operators of this fishery and a similar inshore trawl fishery directed at bass off the Sussex coast, claimed they were already discarding up to 66% of the bass captured, with a 36cm MLS, and if the MLS increased, discard levels would also increase. Supporters of the proposal to increase the MLS wondered why a fishery that demonstrably targeted baby immature bass, was allowed to continue, given the damage that was being inflicted on the stock and the consequential loss of thousands of bass to the fishery that would otherwise have contributed significantly to those who targeted bass as older, larger and more valuable fish. Subsequently, the North Devon trawl fishery applied for MSC accreditation (which failed) and data was published showing the true extent of the damage being done with some tows showing discard rates as high as 80-90%. We would argue there is a sound case for ending these fisheries because their combined levels of fishing mortality from both retained and discarded fish is immensely damaging to other fisheries that would otherwise have access to those fish as older, larger and more valuable individuals. We again point to the hook & line fisheries (commercial and recreational) as the most sustainable fisheries producing the very best returns from public fishery resources for UK plc. We would submit that with a 48cm MLS, the inshore trawl fisheries would prove to be completely unviable and would cease naturally in any case.
The current CFP reform has resulted in a number of suggestions to prioritise access to fishery resources for those methods and sectors that are the most sustainable and least damaging to the environment. At: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0460+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN we read:
"the future CFP should encourage the increased sustainability of the fleet in environmental, economic and social terms, by promoting the progressive prevalence of sectors and operators that use selective fishing techniques and fishing gear with less impact on resources and the marine environment."
Cornwall is ahead of the game and the principle of prioritising access to the bass resource for the most sustainable fishery (hook and line) is already well established with Cornwall IFCA ‘Mesh of Nets in Parts of District’ bylaw introduced as long ago as the early 1980’s. This bylaw effectively reserves bass for hook and line fishing in two relatively small areas but is, we believe, a sound principle on which to build.
Gill netting will in any event, require a minimum mesh size, commensurate with any increased MLS to minimise discards.
Older members of our organisation recall the opposition to the last increase in MLS by commercials when it was raised from 32cm to 36cm in 1990. MAFF Laboratory leaflet 75 states: "The proposed measures (36 cm MLS) generated a fair degree of controversy and hostility from the fishing community during the consultation period."
However, subsequent to the introduction, support for the measures were widespread. Again MAFF leaflet 75 reports that after the increase was implemented: "The very widespread support for the measures expressed by both the commercial and recreational sectors is particularly encouraging." CEFAS has confirmed the MLS increase to 36cm from the previous 32cm, increased the yield by 30 to 40%.
Far too frequently within UK/EU fisheries management, fisheries are managed from a perspective of avoiding a complete collapse or if already collapsed, managed for a recovery. It seems to us that reactive management, whilst better than no management, should be replaced with proactive management. We should be managing public marine fishery resources proactively for the very best return possible over the long term. Why do we appear to aspire, at best, for ‘mediocrity’ rather than ‘excellence’?
We believe bass could and should be managed so that stocks are both abundant and represented by their natural age structure. Such a goal will require constant monitoring of recruitment on a year by year basis and periods of low productivity as a result of environmental influences will require more restrictive management than periods of high productivity.
We do not believe an increased MLS is a panacea for all the problems in the bass fishery but we do believe the MLS is a key component in any attempts at rebuilding bass stocks towards how they were a mere three decades ago.
We make no apologies for the length of this submission nor the parochial nature of much of its content. The future of our bass stocks warrants the fullest explanation of the evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Gilbert
Conservation Officer.
cc Cornish MPs, CFO & Members of the Cornwall IFCA Committee.
Below is Malcolm Gilbert's latest report to the CFSA Executive
Richard Benyon MP
Minister for Environment, Water and Rural Affairs,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A OAA
16th January 2013.
Dear Mr Benyon,
Re: Minimum landing size and management of bass.
The Cornish Federation of Sea Anglers represents 32 clubs and more than 1200 sea anglers.
This organisation wishes to support current representation by the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society and the Angling Trust for a Minimum Landing Size (MLS) for bass of 48cm. This organisation’s minimum weight for bass is, and has been for many years, two and a half pounds (1.1 kilo) which equates to 48 cm total length, so all our competitions already comply with a MLS of 48cm.
Older members, some of whom have half a century or more of first hand experience fishing for bass with rod & line, have witnessed a significant deterioration in the quality of bass angling. We can not substantiate this ‘scientifically’ as we are not scientists, but neither do we think we are all wrong. We do however have some hard evidence which supports our assertion that the abundance of older larger adult bass is now far less than it was a mere four decades ago.
We believe the ‘case’ for increasing the MLS to 48cm is overwhelming and present that case below.
Management Objective.
The International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) has, in a number of publications about bass, stated there are no specific management objectives for bass. This may be the case for Europe but in the UK we believe management of all marine fishery resources is guided by the following goal. "The overarching aim of fisheries management should be to maximise the return to the UK from sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment." This was a key recommendation from the last Governments Strategy Unit report ‘Net Benefits’ and the recommendation was accepted by the Government in ‘Securing the benefits’ and reconfirmed in the current UK policy document, ‘Fishing 2027’ available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb12780-fisheries2027vision-071001.pdf
We believe such a goal, for our public fishery resources is entirely rational and justified but is most certainly not being delivered in the case of bass with the current profile of exploitation.
Recent history of bass fishery in Cornwall.
A pape published by MAFF Fisheries Lab. Suffolk circa 1982 entitled The bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and its fishery in England & Wales reads: Under Age and Size range of bass in the fishery – page 2, para (d),
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall – Small bass are taken by rod and line, gill nets and seines in estuaries and along sheltered shorelines, but the main fishery takes fish of 45cm upwards by trolling from single-handed boats in tide runs and around reefs.
This statement is unequivocally corroborated by an examination of length distribution data from tagging on the Runnelstones and other inshore locations around the southwest in the 1980’s. (hook & line fishery). Published in MAFF leaflet 75 in 1987.
So it isn’t just recreational anglers anecdotally recollecting that there use to be more and bigger bass; we know with certainty that a mere three decades ago, bass of 48+cm were the backbone of the commercial fishery. In the data published in MAFF leaflet 75, more than 80% of all bass caught by the commercial handliners from the Runnelstones & Portland Race were over 50 cm (1.3 kilos).
However, thirty years later in 2006, when Defra consulted on a proposal for a 45cm MLS for bass (0.95 kilo), commercial lobbying vehemently asserted that if introduced, it would end the commercial bass fishery. Some examples which illustrate the response from commercial fishing spokespersons can be found in a report of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee meeting in Fishing News (weekly commercial fishing paper) when the bass MLS was discussed. One commercial owner/skipper stated, "45cm is unrealistic as we hardly ever catch bass over that size." Another commercial vessel owner agreed and said he knew of very few anglers who ever catch bass over that size.
So in Cornwall, the evidence shows an alarming deterioration in the structure of bass stocks with mature fish of 8+ years of age, far less abundant than they were twenty to thirty years ago.
Restoring the fishery.
Members of this organisation want fisheries managers to do what ever is necessary to restore the abundance of older larger bass and it seems to us that one measure that would contribute towards restoring bass stocks is to increase the current 36 cm (0.52 kilo) MLS (37.5 cm in Cornwall IFCA District waters) so as to reduce fishing mortality upon what are baby immature bass so that each annual cohort is allowed to reach maturity before recruiting to the fishery.
In ICES paper http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/2/346.full.pdf+html?sid=f12699f4-a21a-483d-8153-18d151a82565 page 352 shows a table of fishing mortality levels (F) for the years 1985 to 2004 for bass aged 3 to 7. F can be as high as 0.5.
MAFF Laboratory Leaflet 75, page 22 shows how F is highest at age 5 which is entirely predictable because age 5 is when most bass reach the MLS of 36cm and so recruit to the fishery. F then decreases each year as each cohort is cropped by fishing mortality.
With the current 36 cm mls (37.5 in Cornwall) a cohort of bass starts to be fished as early as age 4 when the fastest growers have reached 36cm and by age 5, all of the cohort will have recruited to the fishery.
In 6th year: 100 subjected to F at 0.40 leaves 60 individuals remaining.
In 7th year: 60 " to F at 0.35 leaves 39
In 8th year 39 " to F at 0.30 leaves 27
In 9th year 27 " to F at 0.25 leaves 20
In 10th year 20 " to F at 0.20 leaves 16
In 11th year 16 " to F at 0.15 leaves 14
Note: In addition to Fishing Mortality (F) there is Natural Mortality which for the purposes of this explanation has been disregarded.
An 11 years old a bass is approximately halfway through its natural life and weighs around 2 kilos (57.5 cm). There are only 14 left from the original 100 BECAUSE THE LOW MLS ALLOWS THEM TO BE TARGETED FOR TWO YEARS AS IMMATURE AND VULNERABLE BABY BASS.
Lets us now see what happens if we run the figures with a higher MLS of 48 cm which equates to an 8 year old weighing approx. 1.1 kilos.
In 9th year: 100 subjected to F at 0.40 leaves 60 individuals remaining.
In 10th year: 60 " to F at 0.35 leaves 39
In 11th year 39 " to F at 0.30 leaves 27
In 12th year 27 " to F at 0.25 leaves 20
In 13th year 20 " to F at 0.20 leaves 16
In 14th year 16 " to F at 0.15 leaves 14
Instead of having just 14 bass (from original 100) at age 11 [2 kilo], we have 27 (almost twice as many) remaining. After the same 6 years of exploitation we have 14 left which at age 14 would weigh approx 3 kilos (65 cm).
Quite what constitutes a really large fecund bass is subjective but if we think in terms of a trophy 10 lb (4.54 kilo) fish, we are far more likely to increase the proportion of such examples with the higher MLS.
Following Defra’s announcement of a Consultation on proposal for 45 cm mls in 2007, CEFAS published this.
"In order to achieve the government’s aim, to increase the number and size of fish in the bass population, it would be necessary to protect more bass from exploitation. This can be done either by reducing fishing pressure on bass overall or by directing fishing away from small to medium sized fish. The 1990 bass management package had the same effect and it succeeded by protecting bass up to 36 cm, allowed more fish to spawn, and achieved a 30-40% higher yield to the fishery for a given level of recruitment."
"We have used the same approach to model the likely effects of a further increase in the size at which bass first recruit to the fishery, based on our current assessment of the bass fishery. This shows that the highest yield per recruit occurs at around 48-50 cm and decreases thereafter, though higher yields could be obtained in some parts of the fishery if effort increased."
The case then for increasing the MLS appears overwhelming so why wasn’t it achieved in 2007?
We believe there were three key reasons.
Short term loss of bass that can be retained (to sell or consume).
Firstly there is the inevitable concern from commercial and some recreational fishers that with their current profile of catches consisting mainly of immature small bass, any increase in the MLS would negatively impact the proportion of bass that would be retainable to sell or eat, in the short term. We understand this concern but would argue that having fished down any stock, in order to restore it, there will be an inevitable period where we need to harvest less over the short term in order to be able to improve long term harvests. With current growth rates of approx 4 cms annually, we believe the short term losses will recover within two or three years, albeit with a shift in the profile of exploitation away from gill netting and trawling for immature bass in close to shore waters and estuaries, towards hook & line fishing targeting larger adult fish that with the combined greater mass per recruit and value per kilo, will be of significant increased value to commercial fishers. More and larger bass will also stimulate higher levels of recreational fishing with a consequential increase in the socio-economic impacts to coastal areas.
The CEFAS data for Newlyn in 2005 shows a 38 cm bass with a mass of 590 g was worth £4.92 per kilo earning (at first sale) = £2.90 per individual fish. After three years of growth the individual would be 50 cm with a mass of 1.3 kilo and attract £6.48 per kilo earning £8.42 per individual. This represents a massive 290% increase in value per fish in just three years.
We submit that the sea bass resource, as with all fishery resources, are public societal resources and prioritising access to the bass resource for hook and line fishing – commercial and recreational - generates the best return for the least negative environmental impact. Shifting the profile of commercial exploitation away from small immature fish towards older, larger and significantly more valuable fish will generate greater revenue from commercial fishing. Furthermore, an improved abundance of older larger bass will stimulate recreational participation. The economic impacts within our coastal communities from recreational sea angling, have historically been overlooked but recent research shows that the combination of both resident and tourist sea angling results in many £millions of expenditure. Numerous examples exist throughout the globe where restoration of previously depleted fish stocks have resulted in enormous increases in the number of fishing trips directed at those species with consequential increased angling related expenditure.
Concerns that vessels from other member states will benefit from UK stock enhancement.
The second concern is that French vessels will still be able to target and retain bass within the existing EU MLS regime of 36cm, so any prospects of UK fishers benefiting from more and larger bass will be thwarted because French vessels will get them before they reach the new UK MLS. We believe these fears are grossly overstated. We do not believe the offshore migration of UK bass stocks is as significant as it used to be. We note that the winter effort and catches of Scottish pair teams in Areas Vll e and Vlld are considerably reduced from what they were 10/15 years ago when records show landings (from the offshore fishery) hit over 60 tonnes into Plymouth in just one week on one occasion. CEFAS research resulted in this advice in their Regulatory Impact Assessment 2006.
"The stock of bass exploited within 0-6 miles of the English Coast is not greatly exploited outside that zone by other member state’s vessels, mainly because of fish behaviour. Fewer than 10% of bass tagged within the UK inshore fishery and reported as recaptured were taken by other countries’ vessels. This suggests that the main benefits of an increased MLS would accrue chiefly to fisheries operating within the UK 6 mile zone."
There are of course no foreign vessels operating within the six mile zone.
Discards.
Fear of increased discards was the third key reason the MLS increase failed seven years ago with the main opposition to the proposed increase being led by North Devon bass trawl fisheries operating in the Bristol Channel. Operators of this fishery and a similar inshore trawl fishery directed at bass off the Sussex coast, claimed they were already discarding up to 66% of the bass captured, with a 36cm MLS, and if the MLS increased, discard levels would also increase. Supporters of the proposal to increase the MLS wondered why a fishery that demonstrably targeted baby immature bass, was allowed to continue, given the damage that was being inflicted on the stock and the consequential loss of thousands of bass to the fishery that would otherwise have contributed significantly to those who targeted bass as older, larger and more valuable fish. Subsequently, the North Devon trawl fishery applied for MSC accreditation (which failed) and data was published showing the true extent of the damage being done with some tows showing discard rates as high as 80-90%. We would argue there is a sound case for ending these fisheries because their combined levels of fishing mortality from both retained and discarded fish is immensely damaging to other fisheries that would otherwise have access to those fish as older, larger and more valuable individuals. We again point to the hook & line fisheries (commercial and recreational) as the most sustainable fisheries producing the very best returns from public fishery resources for UK plc. We would submit that with a 48cm MLS, the inshore trawl fisheries would prove to be completely unviable and would cease naturally in any case.
The current CFP reform has resulted in a number of suggestions to prioritise access to fishery resources for those methods and sectors that are the most sustainable and least damaging to the environment. At: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0460+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN we read:
"the future CFP should encourage the increased sustainability of the fleet in environmental, economic and social terms, by promoting the progressive prevalence of sectors and operators that use selective fishing techniques and fishing gear with less impact on resources and the marine environment."
Cornwall is ahead of the game and the principle of prioritising access to the bass resource for the most sustainable fishery (hook and line) is already well established with Cornwall IFCA ‘Mesh of Nets in Parts of District’ bylaw introduced as long ago as the early 1980’s. This bylaw effectively reserves bass for hook and line fishing in two relatively small areas but is, we believe, a sound principle on which to build.
Gill netting will in any event, require a minimum mesh size, commensurate with any increased MLS to minimise discards.
Older members of our organisation recall the opposition to the last increase in MLS by commercials when it was raised from 32cm to 36cm in 1990. MAFF Laboratory leaflet 75 states: "The proposed measures (36 cm MLS) generated a fair degree of controversy and hostility from the fishing community during the consultation period."
However, subsequent to the introduction, support for the measures were widespread. Again MAFF leaflet 75 reports that after the increase was implemented: "The very widespread support for the measures expressed by both the commercial and recreational sectors is particularly encouraging." CEFAS has confirmed the MLS increase to 36cm from the previous 32cm, increased the yield by 30 to 40%.
Far too frequently within UK/EU fisheries management, fisheries are managed from a perspective of avoiding a complete collapse or if already collapsed, managed for a recovery. It seems to us that reactive management, whilst better than no management, should be replaced with proactive management. We should be managing public marine fishery resources proactively for the very best return possible over the long term. Why do we appear to aspire, at best, for ‘mediocrity’ rather than ‘excellence’?
We believe bass could and should be managed so that stocks are both abundant and represented by their natural age structure. Such a goal will require constant monitoring of recruitment on a year by year basis and periods of low productivity as a result of environmental influences will require more restrictive management than periods of high productivity.
We do not believe an increased MLS is a panacea for all the problems in the bass fishery but we do believe the MLS is a key component in any attempts at rebuilding bass stocks towards how they were a mere three decades ago.
We make no apologies for the length of this submission nor the parochial nature of much of its content. The future of our bass stocks warrants the fullest explanation of the evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Gilbert
Conservation Officer.
cc Cornish MPs, CFO & Members of the Cornwall IFCA Committee.
Below is Malcolm Gilbert's latest report to the CFSA Executive
| conservation_officer_report_13t.pdf |
Ray/Flatfish Tagging
Had a call from Stephen Cotterell of the MBA in Plymouth to ask for anglers help in recovering tags put on rays and flatfish. He said that sometimes the tags get worn and damaged so you need to keep an eye out for them. There is a reward for returned tags and details of capture ets. (see below)
"If electronically tagged fish are caught we would like to get the tag returned to us for a reward of £25. This doubles to £50 if we also get details of the time and place of capture, the fish length, width and weight, if possible. It’s not necessary to return the fish to us as the logistics of this are not always too easy, but we would welcome pictures of the tagged animal (top and bottom). If there are any other details that can be included then this would be helpful, e.g. diet, but I understand fully if anglers just want to send us the tag and details."
There is a slightly smaller reward for the return of acoustic and number tags. Posters and forms below.
www.mba.ac.uk/simslab
[email protected]
Had a call from Stephen Cotterell of the MBA in Plymouth to ask for anglers help in recovering tags put on rays and flatfish. He said that sometimes the tags get worn and damaged so you need to keep an eye out for them. There is a reward for returned tags and details of capture ets. (see below)
"If electronically tagged fish are caught we would like to get the tag returned to us for a reward of £25. This doubles to £50 if we also get details of the time and place of capture, the fish length, width and weight, if possible. It’s not necessary to return the fish to us as the logistics of this are not always too easy, but we would welcome pictures of the tagged animal (top and bottom). If there are any other details that can be included then this would be helpful, e.g. diet, but I understand fully if anglers just want to send us the tag and details."
There is a slightly smaller reward for the return of acoustic and number tags. Posters and forms below.
www.mba.ac.uk/simslab
[email protected]
| fish-tagging-recapture-form.pdf |
| marine_biological_association_-_data_storage_tag_-_blonde_ray_poster.pdf |
The CFSA is lobbying constantly to improve protection for the waters around Cornwall to help both angling and maintain a sustainable commercial fishery. The Federation is very lucky to have Malcolm Gilbert as it's Conservation Officer. Malcolm is extremely knowledgeable in this area of work and attends meetings all over the country fighting the case for sustainable fish management. Malcolm can be contacted at [email protected]
Malcolm and the CFSA gives it's full support to a sustainable commercial fishing industry in Cornwall and throughout the country seeking only to highlight practices that are detrimental to both commercial fishing and the sport of angling.
If you look on the Links page you will find lots of links supplied by Malcolm to a variety of angling, fishery and conservation organisations. Have a look you may be surprised or shocked or both about what is going on in the fishing/angling world!
Below is Malcolm Gilbert's report at the 2013 CFSA AGM
Clarification of inshore netting regulations:
Peter Maddern Sept 2012: While fishing on the rocks at Porthcurno I found myself hooked on nets that I did not realise were there. Later the red boat in the photo below came to pull them. He had nets set all along the beaches in Porthcurno-all within casting range. I sent the photo to the Fisheries Office to ask for a clarification of the rules on inshore netting.
Their reply is below and below that is a document that gives the full set of restrictions in Cornwall. That's me on the rock!
Peter Maddern Sept 2012: While fishing on the rocks at Porthcurno I found myself hooked on nets that I did not realise were there. Later the red boat in the photo below came to pull them. He had nets set all along the beaches in Porthcurno-all within casting range. I sent the photo to the Fisheries Office to ask for a clarification of the rules on inshore netting.
Their reply is below and below that is a document that gives the full set of restrictions in Cornwall. That's me on the rock!
Dear Mr Maddern
I have been forwarded your email to the MMO as we enforce byelaws which restrict the use of fixed nets within our District. Your concerns have been voiced similarly by several others. All the reports received so far do not indicate that there has been any illegal netting activity as the area you mention off Porthcurno is not restricted in terms of where nets may be used. The nearest place where the depth of water becomes a byelaw issue is landward of a line drawn between Penlee Pt and Cudden Pt. In that area the headline of a fixed net must be at least 3m below the surface of the water.
I hope this answers your query, but do get in touch if there is any other matter which requires clarification.
Best regards
Simon Cadman
Principal Enforcement Officer
Cornwall Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority
I have been forwarded your email to the MMO as we enforce byelaws which restrict the use of fixed nets within our District. Your concerns have been voiced similarly by several others. All the reports received so far do not indicate that there has been any illegal netting activity as the area you mention off Porthcurno is not restricted in terms of where nets may be used. The nearest place where the depth of water becomes a byelaw issue is landward of a line drawn between Penlee Pt and Cudden Pt. In that area the headline of a fixed net must be at least 3m below the surface of the water.
I hope this answers your query, but do get in touch if there is any other matter which requires clarification.
Best regards
Simon Cadman
Principal Enforcement Officer
Cornwall Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority
Map above shows restricted areas-click below for document giving more detail of where use of fixed nets is restricted.
There are 5 pages-just keep scrolling!
The gist is this: Nets may only be set in these areas if there is at least 3 metres of water above the headrope of the net at any state of the tide. So now you know-you can set nets right up to the beach/rocks anywhere else.
| fixed_net_restrictions.pdf |
Click below for Bass Minimum Landing Size News
| bass_mls_website_news.pdf |
Click below for Malcolm Gilbert's conservation reports
| conservation.pdf |
