Welsh Disappointment

The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) result (bass mls) is not only terribly disappointing, it will IMO make Bradshaw's task of maintaining the English 40 cm MLS very difficult if not impossible. 

I strongly suspect the decision to only go to 37.5 cm was at least in part due to the NFFO challenge.
 
As far as I'm concerned, this decision is further confirmation of what I have really always known. 

The whole fisheries management process is devoid of any rational, biological science or economic science.

Informed deliberation - it is not.
 
It's entirely down to who makes the most noise.
 
I've seen this approach adopted for mackerel, plaice, cod etc.  

ICES carry out research, make recommendations, AND the Minister, in response to intense and vociferous pressure from the commercial catchers, completely disregards the evidence in favour of appeasing those who shout and kick at his door the hardest.
 
Remember, WAG commissioned a study of all their fisheries by Nautilus a few years ago.

Recreational Sea Angling was valued at £28 million.  

Inshore commercial fishing resulted in landings of £8.8 million which included significant landings of crab, lobster, cockles, whelk & mussels as well as number of fin fish which are of little direct interest to RSA.
 
Nautilus stated that there was considerable scope for developing the RSA sector in Wales and that RSA is often overlooked when tourism and coastal development is debated.
 
In a cost benefit analysis, RSA was stated to have very low investment requirement, the highest level of return on investment of any fisheries sector, and was awarded the highest score for cost effectiveness in terms of development.
 
WAG certainly know how to use the research they paid for wisely!
 
If the proposal was to totally cease commercial bass exploitation in favour of achieving a better deal for Wales from RSA, the evidence is there to support  the case. 

But in the event, the proposal was simply about harvesting the animal at a slightly larger and more valuable age, thus benefiting both commercial and RSA exploitation.
 
It's not the message that matters, it's all about how loud one shouts. And until the voice of RSA attracts the support of many more anglers and those who supply RSA needs, decisions will continue to reflect the short term commercial view.
 
Does anyone know of any where around the globe where bag limits are imposed on RSA whilst commercials fish without limit? 

I don't.
 
Such a suggestion completely contradicts the notion of fishery resources being part of our public heritage at laid out in the United Nations FAO code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 

(Incidentally, 'recreation' is listed as a valid use of the fishery resources in the Code).
 
Limiting the catches of all those except licenced commercials may be seen as a means of improving the stock and therefore the quality of the angling product, BUT such a conclusion overlooks the capacity of the commercial fleet to increase it's efforts and replicate any fishing mortality thought to be prevented by controlling unlicenced commercial operators.