Whilst we appreciate that there may be a perceived enforcement problem in some areas, and that bass caught by unlicensed vessels is finding its way onto a local black-market, we cannot accept that any measures to reduce this enforcement problem are in any way to be regarded as a conservation measure.
Bass is currently a non-quota stock, so licensed fishermen are able to remove as much fish as needed to supply market needs (subject to a 5 tonne weekly limit per vessel, which is rarely applicable to catches, particularly the catches of inshore boats).
Should the black-market supply of non-farmed bass be reduced or eliminated, the demand will still be there, and will certainly be filled by the licensed catching sector gearing up to supply the gap in market demand. (There is no limit on the number of nets that can be deployed, how often, or how long the nets are left to fish, and no figures available for the number of boats deploying such netting, and the total netting effort • how can anyone talk of ‘management’ of the bass fishery!)
In fact bona fide anglers, used to taking what they need for themselves and their families as a long established ancient right, if limited in the fulfilling of that need in future, will perhaps create an ever greater market demand.
From a conservation perspective, nothing at all will have been gained, other than to transfer mortality upon bass stocks from unlicensed suppliers to licensed suppliers (not necessarily illegal suppliers either. Both netsmen and ‘commercial’ rod and line fishermen do not need a licence if fish are being taken without the need to use a powered vessel, providing that it is under 10 metres • ie seine-netting or fishing with rod and line from the shore).
(It should be noted that we regard anyone who fishes with the intention of selling their catch as fishing for commerce, not recreation, and therefore when using rod and line, a commercial rod and line fisherman rather than a Recreational Sea Angler who will only take fish for their own use and not for sale).
Sea Fisheries Committees should only use their powers to conserve local resources in response to local conditions.
Clearly, there is no conservation objective attainable by introducing bag limits on non-licensed fishermen on a non-quota stock (unless further measures are also taken to cap licensed fishing).
And because the suggestion is coming from DEFRA, clearly this is not in response to local conditions or needs.
The imposition of bag limits on their own would only serve to protect the market and the market price of licensed fishermen, and as they would apply to bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers who do not sell their catch, and who would not benefit in any way from such a measure, they would be of a highly discriminatory nature, and probably illegal.
We would suggest that a much more equitable way of dealing with any black-market in bass, and at the same time providing a genuine conservation tool that could be used to cap commercial effort if needed, would be the introduction of carcass-tagging for bass, as described in the Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Societies Bass Management Plan (see http://ukbass.com/bassmanagementplan/bmp/index.html ). Putting the risk onto the buyers, and therefore taking away the market, is a much more effective way of attaining compliance than difficult and costly attempts at enforcement on suppliers.
Perhaps more rigorous enforcement of existing legislation such as prosecuting the illegal sale of bass caught from unlicensed powered vessels, and of the new Buyers and Sellers Legislation would obviate the need for any further measures (if they are difficult to enforce, the enforcement of unpopular bag limits is likely to be a nightmare!)
- Conservation Need
The intention of introducing bag limits in the BMP was to develop the Recreational Bass Fishery, and to provide a more valuable and robust stock structure for the catching sector, by introducing a complementary package of measures that would ensure more and bigger bass for all stakeholders.
Bag limits in particular were envisaged as part of a package that would cap the total catch of bass, the cap would apply to both licensed and unlicensed fishermen and to Recreational Sea Anglers.
Bag limits introduced as a standalone measure, with no cap on the total catch, will not achieve this, or deliver any net conservation benefit.
- Reducing ‘Illegal’ Sales
In Wales in particular there is a suggestion that a significant proportion of the total catch is comprised of sales of bass made by unlicensed fishermen.
In many quarters, the assumption has been made that these are illegal sales.
However, although it is illegal to sell fish caught from an unlicensed unregistered powered vessel, or a vessel over 10 metres in length, anyone catching fish from the shore, or from a small unpowered vessel (e.g. oar or sail powered, warped etc), can legally sell any quantity of fish that they catch without the need for quota, or registration under the buyers and sellers legislation etc, whether the catches are made by net or by rod or line.
- The Extent of the ‘Problem’
Although in some areas in particular the problem is imagined to be significant, there is little real evidence to support that assertion.
- Back-Pocket Sales
The situation is further complicated by ‘back-pocket’ sales made by licensed fishermen in some areas.
These are sales of fish legitimately caught by licensed fishermen, but instead of ‘going through the books’, a much higher profit per fish is attained by selling a few fish for cash ‘at the back-door’, thus avoiding payment of tax etc.
By representing themselves as ‘anglers’, questions of the applicability of buyers and sellers legislation can be avoided.
Such sales can comprise a fair portion of the perceived problem, yet would not be affected by the imposition of bag limits on unlicensed fishermen.
This problem needs to be address in tandem with the issue of unlicensed sales if anything meaningful is to be achieved.
- Would there be any conservation benefit?
Even if the volume of sales by unlicensed is reduced, the market demand still exists.
Bass are a non-quota species (though subject to a meaningless 5 tonne per week, or 20 tonne per month, landing limit).
Without any meaningful total cap on the total catch, or reduction of market demand, mortality would simply transfer from the unlicensed sector to the licensed sector, without any conservation benefit at all.
Why are the SFCs being asked to undertake the imposition of bag limits?
Upon closer examination, DEFRA have found that they are unable to introduce bag limits by means of a statutory instrument and have requested that the SFCs step in to enable bag limits to be introduced by means of ‘local’ byelaws.
Who Pays the Costs?
If such byelaws are introduced, there is likely to be a considerable cost involved, not only in processing the byelaw through the various stages of advertisement, consultation and implementation, but ongoing enforcement and monitoring its effectiveness to ascertain whether or not such enforcement continues to be practicable and worthwhile.
If the SFC goes along with DEFRA’s request, it should ensure that ongoing funding is supplied by DEFRA to cover the likely considerable costs of implementation and ongoing enforcement, and to meet the costs of any legal challenges.
Should the SFC be doing this?
The strength of SFCs is their suitability to dealing with locally identified issues, to a large extent independent of government.
The committee needs to seriously consider the implications of being driven by DEFRA on this, not least the amount of time, effort and resources that will need to be diverted to the introduction and maintenance of a ‘local’ byelaw which has arisen not due to any defined local need, but to support a DEFRA policy.
Legality
By imposing what is a restriction on the ancient ‘right to fish’, backed by Magna Carta, and a measure that appears to have no conservation benefit, but is clearly discriminatory, there is every chance that once the byelaw is in place, there will be a robust legal challenge.
Although similar byelaws have been introduced regarding the taking of lobsters by unlicensed ‘hobby fishermen’ these have not been subject to legal challenge by the Recreational Sea Angling lobby, which has experience of dealing with proposed bait digging bans on similar grounds in the past.
Therefore it is important that expert legal advice is obtained (hopefully at DEFRA’s expense!) before the committee goes too far down this road.
Impacts
Before implementing a bag limit byelaw, the committee needs to fully understand the value of the Recreational Sea Fishery within the district, and how such a measure is likely to impact upon the development of the Recreational Sea Fishery, and on the businesses and dependent livelihoods dependent upon the RSA sector within the district.
Also what enforcement of this byelaw on Recreational Sea Anglers will mean to the resourcing of other commitments that require enforcement and the impact on other fisheries of a failure to be able to maintain an adequate level of enforcement across the board.
Monitoring
If the measures are to be worthwhile, they will require enforcement action and a programme of continual monitoring to ensure that they remain effective.
Putting a byelaw onto the books that is either ineffective, or cannot be enforced, and is widely acknowledged as such, can only lead to more difficulties with the committee’s ability to manage its responsibilities in the future.
The committee needs to be confident that it understands the reasons for introducing the byelaw, the ongoing costs and responsibility for future management and the criteria needed to judge whether it is worthwhile and will continue to be worthwhile.
Alternatives
Representatives of the RSA sector that were contacted appear to hold a common view that the bag limit proposals being suggested are like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and not addressing the root of the problem of ‘black bass’, which is the catering trade's willingness to buy fish from individuals, and the ‘commercial sector's’ propensity to sell fish at the back door. (The ‘commercial sector’ including anyone selling fish, licensed or not).
These activities are ALREADY encompassed by the buyers and sellers SI, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner!
If funding is found to progress the bag limit issue it seems that a more efficient use of such funds would be through the introduction of carcass tagging to licensed and registered fishermen.
A description of such a scheme is provided within the BASS Management Plan within a more holistic management approach to achieving best value from the resource.
In addition, the view has been put forward from some RSA representatives contacted that it may be far easier and more cost effective for SFC officers and other enforcement agency officers to visit restaurants, pubs and fishmongers in order to check freezers and fish slabs (together with checking of carcass tags at point of capture, markets etc) rather than tramping along miles of sea shore in search of anglers who might have caught a bass or two and be well within the proposed bag limit.
If additional powers are needed for such an activity then this should be the focus for progression.
Concerns by the RSA Sector
There are currently no effective restraints on the numbers/weight of bass that can be retained by either commercial or recreational users of the public bass resource.
In many other parts of the world, bag limits do apply to recreational anglers BUT ONLY as one management measure amongst a suite of measures designed to deliver the 'best value' on a sustainable basis from a public natural resource.
Those who are advocating bag limits on recreational anglers in the UK may benefit from taking a closer look at why and how bag limits/slot limits are applied in other countries.
Recent MLS changes are to apply to ALL stakeholders, however, the RSA sector would object in principle against the introduction of bag limits on their sector whilst the commercial sector could take whatever they could catch without appropriate limitations, such that the perceived benefits to stock provided through the limitation on anglers could be rapidly absorbed by increasing and uncontrolled commercial effort!
It is manifestly unfair that a huge number of bona fide Recreational Sea Anglers, legally taking fish for their own consumption, should be criminalised in an effort to crack down on the activities of a minority of people fishing with the intention of selling fish (not necessarily illegally). Punishing the innocent in a (probably futile) attempt to restrict the activities of the guilty.
Conclusion
Before considering imposition of a limit to the 'right to fish', it may well be sensible to quantify in some way the scale of the 'problem', and how much the measures are likely to reduce the 'problem'.
So far all we have is anecdotal allegations, confused perhaps by the difficulty to recognise what part of the back door trade comes from:
a) Illegal sales - Fish caught using unlicensed powered vessels or vessels over 10 metres.
b) Legal sales of fish caught that can be legally sold by unlicensed fishermen (from the shore etc)
c) Back-pocket sales by licensed fishermen or others.
Until the scale and circumstances of the problem is properly assessed, and the right measures to address all of the problems identified, there is a risk of sinking into an expensive mire of legally unenforceable measures which will not fully tackle all or any of the perceived problem(s).
If the intention is to improve the conservation of bass, then a system, such as carcass tagging, which puts a cap on the total catch of bass, is needed to supplement bag limits, along with other conservation measures such as a review and expansion of bass nursery areas, close seasons etc should be introduced at the same time.
If the intention is to reduce the sale of back door bass, especially illegal sales, then more rigorous enforcement of existing regulations, and especially those aimed at reducing back pocket sales would seem to be a far more effective solution than introducing additional legislation that is likely to be difficult and expensive to enforce.
Whereas most anglers would undoubtedly accept a conservation package, including bag-limits that will manifestly lead to an improved Recreational Fishery (as well as delivering long term benefits to the catching sector) bag-limits applied inequitably, for no clear conservation benefit, are likely to be largely ineffective and lead to other problems of enforcement and co-operation by anglers with fishery management objectives.
Appendix
From document issued to members of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee • 22nd April 1983 following receipt of a letter from the Ministry:
Reasonableness
Bye-laws which may be regarded as unreasonable are those which inter alia impinge inequitably on the common law rights to take fish from the sea and are partial and unequal in their operation as between different interests.
Discrimination
Bye-laws which openly discriminate between ‘full-time’, ‘part-time’ and ‘hobby’ fishermen may give rise to considerable difficulties: Minister’s present policy is that the law should not be used merely to exclude a particular category of fishermen from a fishery.
Definitions
Hobby Fishing - This term has sometimes been used to cover both unlicensed netting and Recreational Sea Angling, but is more often used to describe unlicensed fishing excluding RSA. The needs, attitudes and circumstances of both these ‘sectors’ are very different and therefore using the term ‘hobby fishing’ to encompass both should be avoided. I.e. instead use ‘hobby fishing and Recreational Sea Angling’ instead.
Recreational Sea Angler • Should only be used to describe those who fish purely for recreation and who take fish only for their personal needs. Anyone who fishes with the intention of selling their catch is fishing for commerce, not recreation, and are better described as ‘unlicensed commercial rod and line fishermen’.
Sections
Archive
Comments (3 posted)
