From PJ Gosselin, Jersey Recreational Fishing Association.
DON Thompson, chairman of the Jersey (commercial) Fishermen’s Association (JEP, 13 June), recently commented in support of the bag limit proposal.

The Jersey Recreational Fishing Association had no intention of dragging up points that blacken commercial fishermen or their association just for the sake of it. It is ironic that, in attempting to counter our arguments, Mr Thompson has now publicly raised these issues himself.

He uses the issue of income tax and illegal sales to support his argument. Many high-end fish sales are cash in hand, whether legal or illegal. Is this not why very simple ‘buying and selling’ regulations have been dismissed by commercial fishermen in favour of bag limits? Such measures clearly tackle the root of the problem and would be easy to enforce, but apparently they involve too many complications (keeping sales records that could be accessed by Income Tax?).

The local bass fishermen operating close in around our coastline are not subject to any catch restrictions whatsoever. Will Mr Thompson please stop claiming that it is not fair to have unrestricted recreational catches while commercial catches are restricted?

Recreational fishermen are not the only ones on the hit list. The commercial association have even proposed restricting the majority of commercial licence holders who do not fish as a full-time living for the benefit the minority of their members who do.

So we are wrong in claiming this is purely an economic measure? Not according to the Draft Sea Fisheries (bag limits) (Jersey) 200 document. We question if Mr Thompson has actually seen the document. The proposals document itself makes many incorrect and ridiculous statements.

Who honestly believes that bag limits will not require an increase in manpower or resources to enforce? The Draft Sea Fisheries (bag limits) (Jersey) 200- regulations is on the Jersey Legal Information Board’s website under: ‘Laws – draft legislation’. We have submitted a full analysis of this document because it raises many serious issues of public interest. It is pointless continuing to counter all the claims Mr Thompson makes, as we have already done this in our analysis.

We agree that we must have a comprehensive plan of action in place ready to deal with any future decline in bass stocks. We will discuss this with Mr Thompson once he stops insulting our intelligence with this current proposal.

It is not difficult to put together a common-sense proposal that does not penalise anyone unnecessarily: base the proposal on stock conservation; target the higher-impact recreational boat fishing methods before the sustainable shore-based methods; state the proportionate commercial restrictions that will also be imposed; state that restrictions will be implemented at the first sign of a serious problem with fish stocks. And this might just start to sound like something we can support. Are we really being so unreasonable in requesting this?

An increase in the minimum bass size that allows fish to breed before being taken is actually a far better conservation measure but is unlikely to be supported by the commercial sector, as most high-end fish purchasers want fish that are just on the current legal size and no bigger.
Nouages Neuvaine,
Chemin au Grèves,
Grouville.