WaveMaker
Issue No 5 – February 2003
The Newsletter of the Sea Anglers’ Conservation Network.
Informing Anglers – Involving Anglers
Visit us at http://www.sacn.org.uk
Introduction
This Newsletter is produced by the Sea Anglers’ Conservation
Network (SACN), a UK based organisation helping in the fight for the restoration
of the life of our oceans and seas, and for the rights of anglers. It is
distributed by email to the membership of SACN, and to any angler who is
interested in the restoration of angling stocks, the conservation of the marine
ecology and the rights of anglers.
Please feel free to pass on your copy once you have finished
with it. Better still encourage friends who are fellow anglers to join SACN
(it’s free!), or at least to drop us a line to be included on our e-mailing
list.
Your views are important to us, if you have anything you want
to say, please email us at FishSense@aol.com. If you have a letter or
article for publication in a future issue of WaveMaker, please mark it for the
attention of the editor, and clearly state that it is for publication in
WaveMaker.
All material published remains the copyright of the
contributor.
Items published in WaveMaker are the thoughts and views of
the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor and/or
the SACN.
Enjoy J
In this Issue:
Editor’s Mark
The WaveMaker editor has his say
Reports
Officers of the SACN are encouraged to file a Quarterly
report for publication in WaveMaker, keeping the membership up to speed on what
they are doing. They don’t always find the time!
Neil Foley – Science & Academic
Co-ordinator
Tom Pinborough – Campaign Director (Cod
recovery)
Bits and Pieces
NFSA Conservation Plan
Marine Conservation Society
National Mullet Club AGM
SACN Application
Problems
Your Letters
Trawling damage
to the stocks and to the marine environment
Some comments on WaveMaker 4
Editor’s Mark
It seems that ever since the grey ghosts melted from the
shallows, as the days shortened and the water of the estuary grew colder, and it
became time to put away my mullet tackle for another winter, I’ve suffered a
non-stop series of colds, flu, bronchitis, and other non-specific viruses.
This winter plague of viruses draining me of my energy, and
my optimism.
The growing pile of issues that needed to be addressed, but
which stayed firmly in the pile waiting for an elusive return to better health
surely, didn’t help my black mood either.
And, as always, there were plenty of such issues.
As well as the normal day to day demands of work and family
commitments, and myriad other issues of conservation and Recreational Sea
Angling, there was the looming annual problem of the destruction of the spawning
bass stocks to be addressed once more, and the conclusion of the review of the
Common Fisheries Policy.
Then ICES dropped the bombshell.
The scientific evidence showed that, unless all fishing for
cod in the North Sea was urgently halted, there was an almost certain likelihood
that they would become extinct. The seriousness of that situation masking the
disastrous states of stocks of other species.
So many times before we have been here, the scientists
advising, the fishermen howling, the politicians falling over themselves to
appease, and nature continuing along the predictable road, deaf to human needs
and politicking. I really felt a black despair.
Then Tom Pinborough and Glyn Hope emailed me with their
concerns and ideas and promptly had their arms bitten off. Tom agreed to take
on the job of Campaign Director for the cod recovery issue, supported by Glyn
and his North Wales Sea Fishing website (http://www.nwsa.ukf.net).
And what a brilliant job they did, and from a standing start.
Mobilising support for the necessarily stiff stance being taken by those few
politicians and bureaucrats who had the vision to see the abyss opening in front
of a blinkered fishing industry.
And it wasn’t without opposition. Self-interest, and the
fear of others, produced many arguments to make us pause and examine our chosen
direction, but without going into the very complex arguments, it was clear where
integrity and the needs of the future would lead us.
At the end of the day, no one seems to have won.
Certainly not the cod which face a reduced fishing effort,
but far short of what’s said to be needed. Certainly not the fishermen who are
losing now in both the short term and the long term. Certainly not the
politicians who were prepared to throw away a possible sustainable future for
the fishing industry for short term popularity, and are now being viciously
condemned by that industry for not doing enough to protect the jobs of
fishermen.
But the profile of Recreational Sea Angling has been raised
by the campaign.
Many letters, coming from anglers, have revealed to the
receivers that there is another force to be reckoned with. The political
awareness of anglers is growing.
So, now the days are getting longer and the daffodils pushing
through the turf. I’m still suffering the residual effects of yet another cold
and facing a huge backlog of things to do. But now I’m looking forward to
cleaning my mullet gear, re-spooling new line, tying new hooklengths and looking
for the signs of returning mullet once more.
Recreational Sea Angling has come a long way, and there’s
still a long way to go. But now the number of anglers prepared to get involved
is growing, and the issues are better understood by many more. Much of the
angling press, with it’s head buried in the sand of good times past, is
increasingly being seen as failing the grass roots anglers, and looking tired
and irrelevant for that.
My optimism for the future is coming back J.
Ed
Reports
Neil Foley.
SACN Scientific and Academic Co-ordinator.
Quarterly Report, Year Ending 2002.
Finally my hard work on the academic front has paid off and I
have now completed my master’s degree (MSc) with distinction. In the New Year I
am starting a new job and will regain control of my evenings and weekends once
more. Hence, I will hopefully have some more time to devote to SACN matters.
My report for the last quarter is sparse due to the aforementioned time
constraints but I have been pursuing the following:
I, like most of you I hope, have written to Commissioner
Fischler with regards to CFP reform and the current ‘cod recovery plan’. From
his reply and ‘open letter’ I am gaining some hope for recovery and the
establishment of correct management for cod and other marine stocks. I just
hope that the politics don’t get in the way of the science and common sense.
· On the home front I have
also written to the Taoiseach, the Irish Minister for the Marine and Minister of
State for the Marine regarding reform of the CFP, the new cod recovery plan and
the Irish Box. Retention of Irish fishing control over the Irish Box is a major
political issue here at the moment. My own sentiments are the Irish control
should be maintained considering the small size and capacity of our fleet, which
presents far less fishing pressure than the implementation of open access. I
have, of course, tried to illustrate the angling alternatives available. Part
of this campaign is being organised by Rolf Hogan (WWF) and I would urge
everyone to visit his site at: http://panda.org/stopoverfishing
· Another area of
correspondence is that of salmon netting and the KNAPK (the commercial
fishermen’s organisation in Greenland) and North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF)
agreement. Ireland, Scotland and Norway are the only other countries not to
have signed this agreement limiting the netting of salmon. While not an
exclusively marine species I feel it is our duty to support this campaign and I
would encourage others to write.
· My major mission for the
first quarter of 2003 is to compile an SACN ‘Academic Package’ for university
students/researchers. The idea of this package is to create an information
resource to those working in the area regarding marine fisheries, their
management and conservation, whilst also containing information on political
decisions and policy. By providing such information or pointing the reader in
the right direction it is hoped that awareness and future policy direction may
be enhanced.
If anyone has any questions or comments regarding any of the
above topics please do not hesitate to contact me by email (address below). Our
letters are making a difference and the momentum must be maintained.
I would particularly welcome any ideas or suggestions for the
academic package.
Wishing all SACN members a happy and prosperous New Year.
Neil
Foley foleyna@medscape.com
Tom Pinborough.
Campaign Director – Cod Recovery.
Cod Campaign Dec 2002
The council of ministers met
in late Dec of 2002 and agreed on major issues, including
· The reform of the common
fisheries policy
· Adoption of urgent recovery
measures for some cod stocks in imminent danger of collapse
Realistically the commission’s proposals are a compromise and
not a reform as they state. The proposals should have gone a lot further.
The commission agreed (for cod) a reduction of 65% in fishing
mortality which translates into a cut of total allowable catches of 45%, the
original proposal was to reduce fishing mortality by 80%, which would have
translated into a TAC reduction of 66%.
Proposals for fish caught with cod
Haddock 70%-50%
Whiting 76%-60%
Plaice 17%-5%
The compromise includes in particular a plan for the recovery
of certain stocks of cod. This plan does not apply for small vessels (below 10
meters) and covers the North Sea, West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat
fishing areas.
The Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and eastern English Channel are
not part from the plan.
Fishing effort limitation has also been agreed and will
become effective from Feb 2003
These limitations will apply to cod fisheries and depending
which area, which kind of fishing gear used, the limitations will vary.
For example North Sea trawlers fishing for cod will receive 9
fishing days out of port
Nephrops (eg
prawns) fisheries in West Scotland will receive 25 days
Additional days are provided in order to compensate for
steaming time between homeports and fishing grounds. Member States can allow the
carryover from a month to the next month of up to 20% of fishing days for
fishing vessels. The master of a fishing vessel has the obligation to report its
landings (over 1 tonne of cod) to the Member State in which the landing is to be
made and must ensure that landings (over 2 tonnes of cod) are made only at
designated ports.
The cod recovery programme originally closed areas to
commercial fishing for the spawning season, this was supposed to be for an
initial five-year period, but was dropped after one year in favour of technical
control measures.
The technical control measures are shown in the publication
listed
(General Fisheries Technical Conservation Rules, Nov 2002,
DEFRA publications)
The limitation of days of fishing effort and the TAC cuts
supplement the above rules.
Having spoken to CEFAS at Lowestoft the current run of small
codling in the North Sea are a direct result of the closed season two years ago,
so if the closed season had continued?
The Commission’s recovery plan for certain stocks of cod, as
amended, remains on the table and will continue to be the basis of work in the
Council.
The Commission will present by 15th February 2003
at the latest any further elements for a decision, which the Council will take
before 31st March 2003 with a view to its entry into force on 1st
July 2003."
It appears that any boat classed over 10 metres has to comply
with all the new Commission’s proposals and the technical conservation rules,
whereas any boat under 10 metres are not effected by the TAC’s and limitation of
days of fishing effort. They only have to comply with the technical
conservation rules. In my area 80% of the fishing fleet are under 10 metres,
therefore there are very grey areas in the true reporting of fishing landings.
The last time there was a ban on cod fishing by under ten
metre boats, all boats were included, charter boats and private boats, the whole
issue of under ten metre boats needs addressing
During the preceding weeks to the Council meeting in
December, a campaign, expressing the views of U.K. Sea anglers was conducted.
E-mails, letters, postings on bulleting boards and posters in
tackle shops were sent out urging sea-anglers to have a say, and proved very
successful in some areas. Having spoken to the office of the fisheries council,
they where receiving up to 25 letters a day and received many hundreds in total,
and they said they noted RSA views.
Letters were published in national newspapers and
occasionally heard on the radio, so the profile of recreational sea angling was
raised.
In other areas it was very annoying at the lack of response
or the response from various MPs and MEPs for not taking RSA very seriously.
During the campaign it became very apparent at the lack of
representation for UK recreational sea angling, a sense of co-ordinated
direction and who to lobby to act on our behalf.
Every time the issue was raised on TV or Radio there was all
the usual suspects, but nobody representing RSA. Perhaps a named spokesman is
required for the media to contact for future statements. There was a reliance on
the WWF and European Angling Alliance to act as spokesman in Brussels.
Sea anglers have the National Federation of Sea Anglers who
are recognised by the UK government, they are slowly growing, but at the moment
they only have a fraction of UK sea anglers as members, and have very limited
resources and funding.
The NFSA needs more members, so it can fully fund and
represent sea-angling issues. As more anglers join, the NFSA will grow, evolve
and deliver the necessary punch to compete and protect sea anglers’ interests.
All sea anglers should join and NFSA members should
actively encourage others to join.
This is the chance to unite and pull in one direction.
www.nfsa.org.uk or 01364 644643
The UK has excellent dedicated, enthusiastic, voluntary
campaigners, who have day jobs.
The daily bombardment of information, sifting through it,
giving priority to issues, trying to hit deadlines is endless and frustrating.
Recreational sea anglers are being asked to attend meetings,
workshops, the new regional advisory councils (RACs), advisory bodies to SPA’s
and SAC’s etc., but generally are unable to fulfil these positions.
There is the difficulty to get to meetings (you have to take
a day of work) or by the time you get home from work, the people you wish to
contact, (Govt departments, MPs, MEPs, fishery committees etc) have gone home.
Reply from the US based Recreational Fishing Alliance
(RFA):
“Getting anglers active and involved is never easy.
We are fortunate that we have paid staff to perform many
of the tasks, such as attending meetings and lobbying.
Getting the word out to anglers did - and still does mean
- extensive travel, visiting anglers and motivating them to become involved.
Garnering favourable press from angling and general news
publications is also necessary.
For elected officials, conservation alone is often not
enough.
When they recognise that jobs and the quality of life of
their constituents is at stake, they are more responsive.
Getting the recreational industry involved is essential.
My suggestion is that you continue to develop your
communication network.
Anglers and industry need to exchange information and in
turn, communicate your concerns to your elected officials.”
As the NFSA grows, the momentum will build. The above points
and the issues raised in the RFA reply can be achieved more quickly and during
normal working hours.
Thank you for responding to the campaign and to all those
that helped.
Tom Pinborough
Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)
I fish, I vote.
Mike Heylin.
SACN Executive Group member and secretary of the Specialist
Anglers’ Alliance .
Another busy month in the world of angling politics
Martin Salter M.P. hosted an “Angling Summit” at Portcullis
House, opposite the House of Commons, on November 18th. Alun Michael,
Minister for Rural Affairs, and boss of Elliot Morley at DEFRA attended and gave
a well briefed statement on a number of issues affecting angling to members of
NAA and the British Disabled Angling Association.
SACN was present in the form of yours truly, also
representing SAA, and we tabled papers on Marine Aquaculture and Marine Gravel
Extraction as well as The Safety of Anglers In the Countryside.
Roger Baker (SACN Campaign Director – Aquaculture) had
provided us with a really good paper on Marine Aquaculture, which is reproduced
below. Unfortunately Salmon & Trout Association (Scotland) have been
running this issue nationally and IMO have failed to take on board most of the
wider implications surrounding the issue. It has been seen as a salmon and sea
trout issue and the implications of a growth in cod farming and bass farming
have been missed.
MARINE AQUACULTURE
THE FUTURE?
Marine aquaculture damages the environment and our sea and
salmon fisheries in many ways;
· Removal of wild fodder fish
from the marine food chain damages the recovery of all marine fish stocks. Five
pounds of fodder fish is required to produce just one pound of farmed salmon and
now we are planning to farm cod and other sea species in the same way?
· The by-catch in industrial
fishing comprises a high proportion of salmon smolt, which depletes numbers
which can return to breed in our rivers.
· Concentration of polluting
waste products under and downtide of the sea cages damage shellfish fisheries
and the marine food chain.
· Produces concentrations of
lice on farmed fish which infest salmon smolts going to sea for the first time,
reducing the number which return and damaging the wild fish stocks.
· Treating farmed fish with
chemicals to reduce the impact of lice introduces more poisons to the marine
environment.
· Farmed fish escapes damage
the wild salmon stocks and destroy the genetic lines of native rivers.
· Producing salmon with fat
levels four times higher than wild fish, so that farmed fish do not deliver the
healthy diet which people expect.
· Producing salmon with
concentrations of dioxin and other poisons higher than in wild fish and
introducing them to the human food chain.
· If this industry were to be
conducted on dry land it would be properly and heavily regulated. Our seas are
not sewers for the use of fish farmers in an unregulated industry. The Scottish
Executive has consistently failed to address the question and has introduced
weak, self regulatory rules for the industry which do not address the concerns
of salmon and sea anglers or conservationists.
BRIEFING PAPER: AQUACULTURE
Prepared by the Sea Anglers' Conservation Network's (SACN)
Aquaculture Campaign Director (Roger Baker) on behalf of the Specialist Anglers
Alliance (SAA) October 2002
Introduction
Stretching westwards from Norway through Scotland and
Ireland, rivers and lochs which once teemed with wild fish are virtually bare.
Because of a lack of fish, hundreds of destinations have been lost to anglers,
as have hundreds of jobs associated with angling and tourism.
Today, two huge multinational corporations, Fjord Cermaq and
Nutreco, control over one third of the world’s aquaculture industry. Upwards of
£30 million of taxpayers money has been poured into the industry in Scotland
alone. Much of this money was used to promote salmon farming and protect it from
public anger and accountability.
Former Scottish Office (predecessor to Scottish Executive)
Tory Environment minister, Lord Jamie Lindsay, is now chairman of the fish
farmer’s representative body, Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS), a tartan label,
which protects the interests of foreign owned salmon farms in Scotland. Brian
Simpson, Lindsay’s CEO at SQS, smugly refutes all scientific evidence and claims
by anglers and environmentalists as, “inconclusive” and “more research
necessary”.
Scottish Anglers National Association's (SANA) president is
professor David McKay, a former employee of Lord Lindsay as his North Region
Director of Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). SEPA has routinely
rubber stamped applications for chemical usage by the salmon industry.
Environmental campaigners have accused SEPA and the salmon industry of creating
a “toxic timebomb” in Scotland’s lochs and rivers.
Well known Scottish game angling writer Bruce Sandison, in an
article in the Mail on Sunday (4th Aug 2002), said, “the hidden story
of the expansion of salmon farming in Scotland is one of deceit, deception,
obfuscation and downright dishonesty on the part of successive Scottish
administrations.
Pollution
Open sea cage fish farming, be it tuna, sea bass or sea bream
farming in the Mediterranean or salmon farming in Scotland, Ireland and Norway,
discharges untreated wastes directly into the sea. It is illegal for land–based
factory farmers to dump dung, excess feed and dead animals into the nearest
public waterway, but salmon farmers can and do. Currents disperse much of the
pollution but some settles below the pens creating anoxic (oxygen deprived)
areas and decomposing bacterial mats with the colour and texture of blancmange.
The Dutch multinational Nutreco, the largest fish farming and
fish feed company in the world, has long been involved in research looking at
the link between eutrophication and fish feed (Talbot and Hole: 1994) but
continues to discharge wastes directly into pristine coastal waters. Resulting
algal blooms, unseen in Scottish marine waters prior to fish farming, cause
financial threats to other industries, serious health threats to consumers of
shellfish and the spread of disease to wild fish
Diseases and Parasites
Described as the finest pathogen vector created by mankind, a
salmon farm acts as a hothouse for disease and lice and is particularly
dangerous when sited in the migratory path of wild stocks of salmon and sea
trout (e.g. river mouths and estuaries).
Infectious disease poses the biggest single threat to
aquaculture. Infectious
Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) and Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA)
are the latest in a long line of infectious diseases such as furunculosis, to
decimate the salmon farming industry. New diseases are appearing all the time.
Disease outbreaks have also affected the sea bass and sea
bream industries in the Mediterranean. The European Aquaculture Society, for
example, has referred to enormous problems with diseases like Pasteurellosis and
Nodavirosis affecting sea bass and sea bream (EAS: 1996). The intensification
of culture of sea bass and sea bream "has provoked some severe disease
problems" (Agius and Tanti: 1997).
Fish-farm-incubated infestations of sea lice are particularly
dangerous to salmon, sea trout and smolts. Through a magnifying glass, sea lice
resemble tiny horseshoe crabs which scuttle across a salmon’s skin eating the
mucus, skin and blood, killing the host in the process. Sea anglers, bass
anglers in particular, will be aware of the naturally occurring sea lice and may
anticipate the consequence of sitting a salmon farm in an estuarine bass nursery
area.
Chemicals
The use of chemicals in an intensive disease and
parasite-ridden farming industry is understandable. However, sea lice chemicals
were designed for use on land animals like sheep, pigs, cattle and chickens.
They are extremely toxic to marine life and marine pollution is sponsored in
Scotland by the organisation set up to protect it.
The north region of SEPA, where most of Scotland’s fish farms
are located, approved 45 uses of sea lice chemicals in 1998. That rose to 104 in
1999, 141 in 2000 and a staggering 296 in 2001. In the same four year period
salmon production increased from 110,784 tonnes to 158,000 tonnes last year.
Kevin Dunnion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth
Scotland said nobody knew the effects of all these chemicals together.
“Worryingly the speed with which the number and nature of the chemicals being
used is outstripping our ability to understand the impact of this cocktail.
SEPA said it kept no accumulated record of the total chemical
quantities it has licensed, but accepted there had been a big increase over the
last four years. (Scotland on Sunday 24th Feb 2002). At the same time
the number of fish farms has remained stable at about 430.
Salmon Farm Feed
The environmental impact of one salmon farm extends far
beyond the patch of seabed beneath it. For every pound that a salmon in a cage
gains, it consumes commercial feed processed from two to five pounds of small
open-ocean fish like anchovy, herring and mackerel. To satisfy the demands of a
one acre salmon farm, processors vacuum almost everything from 40,000 to 50,000
acres of ocean. Stocks of small oily fish are now fully exploited worldwide,
leaving the aquaculture industry scrambling to formulate substitutes for fish
meal and oil.
Escapes
Brian Simpson (SQS) has said that only 1% of farm salmon
escape. This amounts to 500,000 fish per year in Scotland alone. Escapees
interbreed with wild fish and destroy genetic integrity. A deep bodied salmon
with small tail and fins is ideal for spending its life in a share of a cage
equal to a bathtub, but poorly equipped to swim thousands of miles across ocean,
ascend waterfalls and climb spawning streams.
Drug dependant farmed salmon spread disease to wild fish.
Conclusion
Land-based closed containment systems would stem the tide of
pollution from sea cages, prevent escapes, stop the spread of diseases and
parasites to wild fish, reduce the need for chemicals, remove the impact on
coastal landscapes and the loss of wildland heritage.
The technology required for closed containment systems
already exist and is being commercially developed in Canada but it has not been
adopted in Europe as farmers dismiss it as too expensive.
Salmon and sea trout anglers need to examine the credentials
of their organisations’ officers to determine why they have been singularly
unsuccessful in stopping the destruction of wild fish stocks and their members’
sport.
Special thanks to Salmon Farm Protest Group (SFPG) for use
of papers and articles from the archives at http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/
And special thanks to Roger Baker for his invaluable inputs
on this major issue. DEFRA can no longer claim that they do not know the
problems of the industry or that it is simply a “Scottish” problem. Hopefully
the SACN view will be reflected in the negotiations now going on about the
future of the CFP, which envisages a large growth in Marine Aquaculture in the
future.
Mike Heylin
Secretary Specialist Anglers Alliance
http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/saa
Bits and Pieces
NFSA Conservation Plan
No one knows for sure just how many anglers fish our coasts.
Apart from crowded holiday beaches, it’s often difficult to look at a coastal
view, when the tide is right, and not see figures standing patiently alongside
rods. Then there are the crowded piers, and beyond, on the water, the charter
boats packed with anglers whatever the conditions.
It’s a lot of anglers, a lot of votes, a lot of influence.
But only if sufficient numbers of them are prepared to help
out, to pay their dues, to put something back.
The National Federation of Sea Anglers is the governing body
of our sport. That is the body that is recognised by Government as representing
sea anglers. But the voice of the NFSA is only as loud as the size of its
membership. What it can accomplish is restricted by the amount that sea anglers
financially contribute.
Of all those rods, in all those places, it’s relatively few
that are attended by anglers who are contributing to the NFSA. The many being
carried and dependent upon the contributions of the few. That is shameful.
Tackle such non-contributing anglers and you get some
familiar excuses. ‘NFSA only care about matches and match fishermen’, ‘NFSA are
doing nothing while the stocks go down the pan’, ‘If the NFSA were to do
something about getting rid of the illegal nets along my beach, I’d join’.
Maybe, in the past, some of that was true, but if anyone has
any doubt about the NFSA’s commitment today, they should take a look at this:
http://www.nfsa.org.uk/conservation/conservation_plan.htm
Sometimes people are slow to change their views, clinging on
to old thinking as the world around them changes. Word of mouth spreads the
message must faster than anything else. So, tell your friends it’s time to join
the NFSA.
If we could double the NFSA membership, it would still be
just a small proportion of anglers fishing the sea, but doubling the NFSA
membership would quadruple the amount that the NFSA could achieve, and if we
could double it again…….
It just needs the word to be spread.
The Marine Conservation Society
Another organisation that conservation minded anglers should
consider joining is the Marine Conservation Society (http://www.mcsuk.org).
This British based organisation is at the forefront of
campaigning to protect the marine environment, and all the life that exists
there, and actively acknowledges the part that Recreational Sea Anglers play in
preserving what we still have.
Through the MCS, conservation minded anglers have the
opportunity to engage in a dialogue with others who share our concerns, and to
influence the wider engagement of conservationists in the issues that primarily
concern us.
As more and more conservationists start to call for protected
areas around our coasts, it’s important that the voice of recreational angling
is heard in the debate. Not only to ensure that such areas are created, but
also to ensure that recreational anglers are not lumped together with
destructive exploiters when it comes to deciding what activities can take place
in those areas.
National Mullet Club AGM
Anyone in the area of the Mountbatten centre in Portsmouth on
Sunday 16th February might like to drop in on the NMC AGM.
If you’ve ever considered fishing for our elusive grey
ghosts, this could be a good place to start. A chance to meet the experts and
buy me a beer.
http://www.Go-Fishing.co.uk/mullet.htm
SACN Application Problems
Recently there has been a problem with the SACN online
applications from the website.
If you’ve had problems applying for membership, or have
applied and haven’t had an acknowledgement with your SACN membership number,
please reapply.
The problem has now been fixed.
Letters
In a message dated 10/26/02 8:03:14 am GMT
Daylight Time, jean-louis.guillou@wanadoo.fr writes:
(For more facility, enclosed a text translated into a
translator installed on my PC, excuses me for this approximate translation.)
Hi Léon.
Thank you very much for the differents informations.
If you can allow me, here are some comments.
All temporary or partial closing down on any or several
marine species will bring only a brief lull for populations of fish. For a
return to the normal, it would be necessary both to impose stricter quotas and
to forbid some practices, as the usage of the trawl under all its forms, because
this type of peach engine is not selective.
Besides the fact that a raid trawl all, without no
distinction of sizes, neither varieties, the intensive usage of this engine
destroys the vegetation of the bottom of the sea, vegetation that serves often
shelter for the young fish.
In researches of species targeted by professional
fishermen, all the other varieties of fish are systematically rejected to the
sea. I have seen a study of IFREMER on rejects of trawlers. For some fish
species not estimated by consumers, rejects can reach 100%.
It would be interesting to know if a such study on rejects
of fish by trawlers has been made English side by a competent organism -
M.A.F.F. or other -. If yes, to make a campaign beside Brussels to ask
restrictive measures concerning the trawlers.
What think some you ?
Amity, Jeannot
Hi Jeannot,
Many in the fishing industry take great comfort from the
evidence of stock recovery that occurred when Europe was at war, and as a result
very little commercial fishing took place.
Indeed the abundance of fish, following this period of
hostility, is considered to be a baseline for fully recovered stocks, and
recovery to this level of stock has given the idea to many people that stocks
can be recovered if they are 'rested' for a time.
This comforting idea is the reason that many people consider
it acceptable to fish a stock down to 'the limit', even when what 'the limit'
is, is not clearly defined. After all, if the worst comes to the worst, a few
years of restrictions will have the stock bouncing back, won't it?
Unfortunately, there are several things wrong with this rosy
view L
Recent study of paleantological evidence shows that mankind
has driven down the productivity of the oceans ever since early man first went
out onto the water to exploit the ocean's richness. The scientists involved
speak of a 'fabulous wealth' that existed long ago, and show that even the
'recovered' stocks following the war are a fraction of the potential biological
wealth of the oceans. They also suggest that 'full recovery' from the effects
of man's exploitation of the ocean's biology would take tens of thousands of
years.
Even then, the limited recovery of the stocks during the war
period was from a 'low' point far higher than that which exists today, and
nowhere near the level of 'biological collapse' that many stocks are now near or
beyond.
What is of great concern is that there appears to be
mechanisms whereby once a stock has collapsed from over-fishing, it can never
recover.
1) The
gene pool of fish of spawning age is so reduced that there is insufficient
genetic diversity in the stock to enable it to adapt to environmental
challenges.
2) A
species may need to 'maintain' it's environmental niche. e.g large cod keep the
numbers down by predation, of species that eat its own eggs and fry. Once there
is insufficient adults left to 'defend' its eggs and fry, the species may never
be able to recover - its niche taken over by less desirable, and smaller species
that thrive once the apex predators have been removed.
Although it is difficult to deny the commercial fishing
lobby the opportunity to make money when there seems to be plenty of juveniles
for the catching, that is when a ban will have the best effect, allowing plenty
of juvenile fish to grow big and spawn themselves, ensuring future productivity.
Not when things have become demonstrably close to disaster, and perhaps
unrecoverable.
With regard to the damage done by certain types of gear to
the structures of the sea bottom, yes this is of great concern and has been for
a number of years.
Again, fairly recently, a number of valuable 'cold-water'
coral reefs have been discovered in the North Sea, all badly damaged by fishing
gear. These areas and other areas need to be protected.
It's often been said that if rabbits (say) were harvested on
land (by airships perhaps), trawling gear that rips up trees, bushes and other
habitats, killing many other creatures, the public outcry would be immense.
However, a trawler with wires disappearing below the surface seems innocuous,
and few see or appreciate the damage done.
Even worse than what is happening in European seas, is the
damage being done by the European fleet to the habitat of the coastal regions of
West Africa. When the stocks are gone, and the boats finally leave, there will
be no recovery there. The ecological damage to the underwater environment will
take many generations to repair, if that can ever be done.
Our best hope is that areas of the sea where there is a rich
ecological infrastructure of reefs and kelp forests etc, can be identified and
turned into some kind of Marine Reserves where destructive methods are banned,
feeding productivity into adjoining regions of the ocean. But as these areas
are rich picking grounds for the exploiters, a great deal of political will is
needed to bring them about.
Discards.
There is no subject quite so emotive to everyone involved as
the rules that require fishermen to dump marketable fish back into the sea.
This is seen as pure waste, perhaps pollution of the
environment!
(Though nothing of biological value is ever wasted by the
sea)
The problems here are complex, and in part are bought about
by the need to deal with inherent dishonesty.
Fish of different sizes sometimes swim together.
Fish of different species sometimes swim together.
Current regulation demands that undersize fish cannot be
retained and, as (in most cases) they cannot be returned alive, they must be
dumped back into the sea (and thereby re-enter the ocean, rather than the human,
food-chain).
This can lead to circumstances where vessels take many
tonnes of smaller fish, to fill a few boxes with legal-sized fish, the fishermen
complaining that they are 'forced' into doing this by current regulation.
If only we could be confident that fishermen would not
target undersize fish, perhaps shoaling separately from larger fish, we could
allow the fish to be landed and count against the vessels TAC.
Where fish of different species swim together, the
regulations acknowledge this by allowing a reasonable level of 'bycatch' to be
landed.
However, often this 'bycatch' can be worth more than the
primary catch, and there are instances where boats go to one area to catch their
'bycatch', before setting off to catch the 'primary catch' to legalise the
landing of the 'bycatch'!!
Far more complex, better informed and greater minds than
mine have tried to come to a fair system that does not involve the discarding of
bycatch, and many ideas have been tried in different parts of the world.
The biggest problem of all is being able to enforce
restrictions laid down upon paper.
If only we could guarantee that all fishermen would be
honest, and would religiously keep to the spirit of legislation, rather than to
find ways around the rules (and many try to do so!)
I do not have any easy answers to any of these questions,
but that should not be an excuse for burying one's head in the sand. By
constantly raising these issues with the various organisations, politicians and
authorities, we build and maintain the 'political will' for something to be
done.
Ed
The following emails were received
following publication of WaveMaker Issue No 4 J
|
Subj: |
Re: Sea Angler's Conservation Network: WaveMaker
|
|
Date: |
10/12/02 5:52:31 pm GMT Daylight Time |
|
From: |
Struanmep |
|
To: |
LEONROSK
|
Thank you very much for
drawing my attention to WAVEMAKER. It is an excellent publication. The two
articles on CFP reform were very interesting, particularly the report of your
meeting with DEFRA which was most instructive. Thanks again.
STRUAN STEVENSON MEP
Leon
I have to say I'm impressed by the whole
publication you've sent-a very,
very good c ommunication
tool....
Regards
Chris
(ed: Chris Burt is a vice- president of the
Specialist Anglers Alliance – http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/saa)
Leon,
Just found time to read WaveMaker No. 4.
Excellent!
Keep it up,
Malcolm
(It makes it all seem worthwhile J - ed)
SACN Executive Group Contacts
Roger Baker rogerbaker@Eircom.net
(Campaign
Director – Aquaculture)
Frank Beaugendre beaugendre@aol.com
(Political
Co-ordinator)
Mike Connor (Germany) Mike-connor@t-online.de
Neil Foley – Science and Academic Co-ordinator foleyna@medscape.com
(Science and
Academic Co-ordinator)
Mike Heylin saauk100@hotmail.com
Glyn Hope images@i12.com
Nick Noble Nnoble@nildram.co.uk
(SACN Website
editor)
Tom Pinborough tom@pinb.freeserve.co.uk
(Campaign Director – Cod recovery)
David Platt Dave@babs45.freeserve.co.uk
Leon Roskilly FishSense@aol.com
(SACN Co-ordinator
& WaveMaker editor)
Alan Stubbs Aps4fun@yahoo.com
Gerard Twigger gt2000@lineone.net
Simon Yorke-Johnson Swidge@supanet.com
The SACN Executive Group has overall collective
responsibility for running SACN and is answerable to the registered membership.
Individual members of the Exec, who have responsibility for a
particular area, are given the authority to use their judgement in pursuing
their responsibilities without routinely referring back to the Exec, unless they
feel that is appropriate. However, they are always mindful that they are
responsible both to the Executive group and to the membership at large for their
decisions and actions.
If you are a member of SACN and feel that you would like to
be more closely involved, please get in contact by emailing FishSense@aol.com
Something on your mind?
If there is an issue that you want to bring to the attention
of the world, why not write an article for WaveMaker? Or perhaps just a letter
will do?
In any case, send an email to FishSense@aol.com marked ‘For Publication in
WaveMaker’, and I will try to include it in the next issue.
Remember that WaveMaker is your magazine, trying to bring to
attention the issues that concern you.
If there is something that can’t wait, and you want to
discuss with other anglers, why not post a thread on the Anglersnet Sea Fishing
forum at http://anglersnet.co.uk
Sections
Archive
Comments (0 posted)
