While all of you have been out fishing things have been going without you, It appears that a very very small minority group of anglings known as The Angling Trust have now become the UK Fisheries Managers, The Fisheries Minister is going to implement TATs policies at national level and without consultation with the majority of commercial fishermen and rsas. Increases in MLS and mesh size and bigger and more nursery areas. Another body blow to small coastal fishing communities. Are you going to take this one lying down as usual. Commissioner Karmenu Vella, Environment Directorate-General European Commission B-1049 Brussels Belgium Dear Commissioner Vella REFERENCE: WESTMINSTER HALL DEBATE (3 December 2014) HOUSE of COMMONS UK SEA BASS STOCKS Please regard this as a open letter. We have all heard the rhetoric emanating from the European Fisheries Commission and our UK Fisheries Ministers and their departments, stating that commercial fishermen as stakeholders should be proactively involved and give input into the policy and decision making process at European, national and local levels, something that rarely happens. Also a non discriminating public consultation process was supposed to support a democratic way of formally determining management decisions and policy for the benefit of all stakeholders, consultations are normally predetermined. A social and economic policy should be taken into account when making any policy or management decisions so as to protect small coastal fishing communities, this is never applied. One would expect that living in a democratic society that these processes would be performed without prejudice and by impartial fisheries managers and there staff. None of these processes are being taken into account by fisheries managers in an even-handed way, and fair to all. A prime example of this is the following letter. The Angling Trust (TAT) is a very small minority group of anglers and they approximately represent less than 1% of anglers nationally, leaving over 800,000 unrepresented anglers that catch and land 440 tons of bass in 2012 according to official figures. The views of this unrepresented majority of anglers have not been sort by the Fisheries Minister in the form of a formal consultation on the implementation of TAT bass measures that the Minister has appeared to have adopted. TAT, in my opinion, are a hard-line organization that appear to be anti-commercial fishermen and have collated a case by carefully selecting certain information in pursuit of their own aspirations, they are leveraging their economic worth in terms of jobs, value-added tax and income tax, in pursuit of obtaining their ultimate goal which appears to be having the bass fishery a designated angling fishery only. TAT have regularly lobbied Members of Parliament (MPs) and found favour with some that have angling interests, which has resulted in other group and summit meetings with the fisheries minister, members of his staff and MPs. I quote from the aforementioned bass debate: Richard Benyon: As Fisheries Minister (of the time), aside from my personal interest in fishing and angling and what my fishing friends would have told me, I do not think I would have known about the problem until it reached its present stage if it had not been for the Angling Trust coming to see me with a group of people who really know what is going on. We could then put in train a process—which I wish had happened earlier—involving the Government working well with organisations that are informed and rational in how they work with ministers. MP George Hollingbery (Meon Valley), who is a keen sea angler himself introduced the debate to TAT proposals and asked the Fisheries Minister and I quote from the above bass debate: Finally, does the Minister agree that the development of sea bass fishing as a recreational activity is the best long-term solution to both the ecological and the economic sustainability of the fishery, as proved by the Irish sea bass experience, the striped bass fishery of the north-east coast of the U.S. and many other examples? MP George Hollingbery has asked for the bass fishery to be for anglers only fishery. He also introduced the Blue Marine Foundation report. TAT are not fisheries managers and their deluded bass proposals will have a devastating impact on the bass fishery and small scale commercial fishing communities as well as the majority of other recreational sea anglers (RSA). Blue Marine Foundation (BMF) I believe, are a group of yachtsmen who appear to be anti-commercial fishermen with environmental aspirations and are in search of their ultimate goal. I quote from their website members play an active role in ensuring that our seas remain a resource to be enjoyed by future generations. Whether youre a yacht owner, captain, broker or builder, the oceans are ours. Its time we claimed them back. I assume they mean claim back from the commercial fishermen. BMF In my belief, claim to have commissioned an independent report Defining the Economic and Environmental Values of Sea Bass - theres nothing independent about this report, it was written in keeping with BMFs own environmental aspirations and ultimate goal, you get what you pay for. BMFs report, in my opinion, appears to have been concocted so as it was in keeping with TATs bass proposals that were presented at the above debate; the report itself appears bias, based in part on assumption, unbalanced and factually incorrect in parts. The report was very well received at the above debate. At the Westminster Bass Debate, seven of the debating MPs have a self interest in angling of some sort which includes one ex and the current fisheries minister. The debate itself was nothing more than a ‘private members-only’ angling club meeting with a like-minded report thrown in by a environmental group who are seeking, quote, the oceans are ours. Its time we claimed them back. TATs proposals for bass measures along with the BMF report found good favour amongst the seven MPs with self interest. The main theme of the debate centred on the BMF report and in particular, the economic worth between the RSA and commercial fishing industry, several MPs made comments such as the VAT from the RSA is worth more than the entire income from commercial fishing. It comes as no surprise that, with a large contingency of MPs with self interest, the debate chose the economics of the RSA over that of the commercial fishing industry along with several requests for the bass fishery to be RSA fishery only. To me, the debate appeared to be anti-commercial and nothing short of a ‘lynch mob’. The debate was not balanced and the vast majority of RSA and commercial fishermen were not consulted or had any input whatsoever. I find it completely incomprehensible that because of the apparent declared self interest by MPs, and the bias nature that the debate took on with regard to the economic worth between two different stakeholders, the Fisheries Minister and/or the chairman, didnt intervene and bring the debate to order. Perhaps it was because, and I quote from the above debate: MP George Eustice: First, on the value of recreational angling, I should declare an interest, because my brother fishes bass in Cornwall and regularly lobbies me on bass stocks. The debate was supposed to be about bass stocks and not justifying an economic case to have the bass fishery designated RSA fishery. I believe that the Fisheries Minister’s position has been compromised. As a commercial bass fisherman for the last 40 years I would like to say that these wannabe fisheries managers who are just stakeholders have hyped up and over stated the bass problem. The bass fishery should be kept as it is at present so as to prevent it becoming just another discard fishery. The only thing that needs to be done is to mitigate the effects of the mortality by the pair trawlers on the bass spawning grounds. This may mean a ban on the pair trawlers who should receive compensation. The increase in recruitment would be enormous and would sustain the future of the fishery, the answer is that simple. EU Commissioner Vella, the purpose in writing to you is to ask you to present this letter at the next convenient fisheries meeting with the view of having a review or inquiry so as to bring about legal procedures and/or protocols in the form of a charter so as to protect and give all stakeholders the same equal opportunities as described in the first two paragraphs of this letter. The above letter is a prime example on how some stakeholders can sway fisheries management decisions and policy at the cost or detriment to other stakeholders and this needs rectifying. If you feel the need for clarification or further information please do not hesitate to ask. Stephen Gathergood commercial fisherman The full debate referred to in this letter can be read here:- publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141203/halltext/141203h0001.htm
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:49:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015