Long-term stocks or short-term profit?

Saturday 20th June 2009, 3:00PM BST.

From Derek Buesnel.
READING the recent correspondence in relation to bag limits for bass anglers, there seems to be mostly negative feedback regarding their proposed introduction.

As a keen bass angler, I feel that bag limits should be introduced. However, I believe the reason for their introduction, which is to protect the interests of the commercial fishing sector, is questionable.

Having recently fished in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, I found that all these countries have bag limits on various types of fish which are accepted by the vast majority of anglers. The regulations are enforced and non-compliance results in substantial fines.

The reason for their acceptance is because the limits have been introduced as a package to protect fish stocks, and not in isolation in order to safeguard commercial interests.

These countries all have marine reserves where fishing is totally banned. They all have realistic minimum landing sizes so that fish have a chance to breed at least once before being of legal size to be kept. In America there is also a maximum landing size which allows for the stronger, bigger fish to be released, producing stronger young that are more likely to survive. In addition, there are also closed seasons to allow the fish to breed unhindered.

In Jersey we have none of the above. The current minimum landing size for bass is 36 cm. At this size the fish will not be mature enough to breed even once before it can legally be kept.

There is no doubt that the bass around our coast are in decline – the larger fish, which tend to be females, are getting fewer and fewer and the majority of fish are now around the 2 lb mark or smaller. This is good for the commercial sector – a perfect size for fitting on a plate in a restaurant – but damaging to the stocks.

Without the larger female fish which can carry twice as many eggs as smaller fish, our bass fishery is already suffering. It is in fact mirroring what happened to the striped bass fishery on the eastern seaboard of the United States in the late 1970s and early 80s, when overfishing resulted in the loss of the larger fish and the subsequent collapse of stocks.

The US government responded by imposing strict controls on commercial and recreational fishing, including total bans in some states, until such time as stocks recovered.

Tight controls still remain on commercial fishing and a bag limit of one fish per angler per day is in force in most states. As a result, the fishery is now thriving, attracting anglers from all over the world and bringing in a revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The policy on our proposed bag limits claims that such regulation would contribute to increased angling tourism, as it would underline the importance to the Island of efficient management of the fishery. This statement is highly questionable – the introduction of a bag limit alone isn’t ‘efficient management’ unless it forms part of a series of measures to protect bass stocks.

Although an increase in the minimum landing size and a closed season would affect the commercial fishing sector, as well as the recreational angler, the long-term sustainability of the bass stocks is more important than short-term profit. Or at least it should be.
Le Clos, Bagatelle Road, St Saviour.

1
Adrian

June 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm

In my opinion it is time to look at the top end and in particular pair trawlers which take far too many fish and dump the unprofitable species back into the water to die. I myself would ban pair trawling and reduce trawling as much as possible as well. This would be a massive step forward in the steps needed to save fish stocks from collapsing.

Unfortunately Jersey has been too soft on its fishing regulations as per foreign boats in its waters, in my honest opinion. The French should be removed for Jersey waters, even if Jersey fishermen have the same applied to them in french waters. The reason is one of sustainability. The French are slowly but surely depleting their fish stocks due to over fishing and it is only a matter of time before Jersey feels the effects of this. This will be compounded by French boats fishing in Jersey waters, as they go further afield to make a living.

Trawling is unfortunately a bad practice and is the most damaging to fish stocks due to its ability to catch hundreds of tonnes of fish in one net. No other fishing practices is as detrimental to fish stocks, except for possibly dredging for fish. One day last year it was reported one boat caught 40 tonnes of bass off of Guernsey, how long can this go on for. As per the minimum bass size it is too small for sustainability and needs to be raised to 42-45 cms from the present 36cm.

As per sustainability this is the number one aim and overrides anything else even if it means a total ban of everyone even of the professional fishermen as far as I am concerned. Whether the government will be up to the task, is questionable, in my opinion, as will they be prepared to stop the professionals should it be necessary to?

I believe the government is taking the easy option of hitting the lower order fishermen to give the professionals a better chance. They will also believe that it is less a political hot potato to do it this way. However as the biggest boats with the professional fishermen take the most anyway is this the proper way to go to conserve fishing stocks?

I don’t believe occasional anglers are no where near as damaging to fish stocks as they tend to be species specific and do not catch many species they aren’t after by mistake.

I believe these regulations are being brought because the taxman doesn’t like cash sales, as it is too hard to keep a track on these sales, and also to stop the illegal selling of fish which undercuts the professional fishermen.

I have concerns about this new law, as I believe it is a first step towards banning anyone but the full time professional fishermen, from fishing for profit, which is wrong, if this is what the authorities are up to. I would be in favour of fishing permits as at least the government could get an annual revenue from these annual fishing permits for those who haven’t boat or a fishing licence to go with it.

If a person is prepared to buy a fishing licence they shouldn’t have their licence affected by future changes to it, just because they aren’t doing it full time. If they buy a proper licence it should not be dependent on whether they are doing it full time or not. Also until there are sufficient fisheries staff to police this new law it is pointless anyway as people will just carry on as normal.

As per this law I do wonder if it will be enforcable as I had been led to believe that it was a Jersey persons inalienable right to fish without restrictions. If this law is brought in this will be a further errosion of islanders rights.

By all means control fishing efforts to preserve fishing stocks for future generations but please don’t be too draconian in its application to all, but the professional fishermen, as I believe this could cause upset islandwide. I know quite a few who are not best pleased by this proposed law.

Report abuse
2
PJG

June 24, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I agree completely with Adrian (there’s a first time for everything), especially the pair trawling.
As a diver I have seen the damage these abortions do to the sea bed and bottom life.
Its the professional fisherman who is trying to supply foreign demand thats causing the problem. If we only supplied local market from our waters the stocks would recover.

Report abuse