Bass being commercially exploited again!?

The FIF proposal makes no mention of the BSA, and specifically states south of (51.30’N) in area VII, from which it is natural to assume that they wish to fish all of that area.
If the FIF had any commitment to conservation or sustainable management of stocks then I would expect the BSA to be specifically mentioned in their proposal. The fact that it isn't says enough to me.

Or maybe it wasn't mentioned because the BSA is accepted as an automatic no no? See again you are just jumping to conclusions when you need to actually find out the answer before acting or mounting a strategic opposition?

The FIF proposal makes no mention of the BSA, and specifically states south of (51.30’N) in area VII, from which it is natural to assume that they wish to fish all of that area.
If the FIF had any commitment to conservation or sustainable management of stocks then I would expect the BSA to be specifically mentioned in their proposal. The fact that it isn't says enough to me.

Or maybe it wasn't mentioned because the BSA is accepted as an automatic no no? See again you are just jumping to conclusions when you need to actually find out the answer before acting or mounting a strategic opposition?

Well, let's see, that info has not been made available, all we have to go on is the fact that representations have been made to the Minister by the FIF to allow fishing south of the 51 30' line in Irish waters. I've made a submission outlining why this should not be allowed, and one of the reasons was the lack of data - I requested that data be provided. So I have made steps to try to find out the answer, but I'm also posting on here my opinion. That opinion has been informed by years of watching the Irish commercial fishing industry (and that of other countries) flout fisheries law and decimate our fish stocks. So excuse me for being biased, or skeptical about their intentions.
As for Irish boats accepting the BSA as an automatic no no, are you for real?

recieved this from John o Mahony this morning

Noel, Further to your e-mail, I've tabled the following Dáil Question to theMinister and hopefully the response will clarify the situation. I should have the reply next week and will be in touch with you again then.

To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources if hewill outline his intentions regarding the granting of permission to allow commercial fishermen fish for bass at sea and if he will give details of how he intends to ensure the preservation of the inshore bass stock and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Kind regards, John ______________________________

JOHN O'MAHONY TDFine Gael Spokesperson on SportConstituency Office, D'Alton Street, Claremorris, MayoTel 094 9373560 094 9373560 Fax 094 9373379Dáil Office 01 6183706 01 6183706Text 086 326 8041 086 326 8041www.johnomahony.ie

[SandTiger]

Well, let's see, that info has not been made available, all we have to go on is the fact that representations have been made to the Minister by the FIF to allow fishing south of the 51 30' line in Irish waters. I've made a submission outlining why this should not be allowed, and one of the reasons was the lack of data - I requested that data be provided. So I have made steps to try to find out the answer, but I'm also posting on here my opinion. That opinion has been informed by years of watching the Irish commercial fishing industry (and that of other countries) flout fisheries law and decimate our fish stocks. So excuse me for being biased, or skeptical about their intentions.
As for Irish boats accepting the BSA as an automatic no no, are you for real?

Well, putting your emotions to one side, for a moment if I may, how do you propose to deal with the stock assessment findings summarised here - http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist ... s/135606/0

Last edited by SandTiger on Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

recieved this from John o Mahony this morning

Noel, Further to your e-mail, I've tabled the following Dáil Question to theMinister and hopefully the response will clarify the situation. I should have the reply next week and will be in touch with you again then.

To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources if hewill outline his intentions regarding the granting of permission to allow commercial fishermen fish for Bass at sea and if he will give details of how he intends to ensure the preservation of the inshore Bass stock and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Kind regards, John ______________________________

Brilliant Noel, would it also be worth asking Mr O'Mahony to also ask the Minister if it is envisaged that the BSA will fall within FIF's proposed area of re-opened operations? You may have to send him the link that I posted above along with the page number

Well, let's see, that info has not been made available, all we have to go on is the fact that representations have been made to the Minister by the FIF to allow fishing south of the 51 30' line in Irish waters. I've made a submission outlining why this should not be allowed, and one of the reasons was the lack of data - I requested that data be provided. So I have made steps to try to find out the answer, but I'm also posting on here my opinion. That opinion has been informed by years of watching the Irish commercial fishing industry (and that of other countries) flout fisheries law and decimate our fish stocks. So excuse me for being biased, or skeptical about their intentions.
As for Irish boats accepting the BSA as an automatic no no, are you for real?

Well, putting your emotions to one side, for a moment if I may, how do you propose to deal with the stock assessment findings summarised here - http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist ... s/135606/0

As a qualified fisheries scientist, I think I can put my emotions to one side alright and look at this dispassionately. I still come to the same conclusion. Historical events tell me that bass were once abundant in Irish waters, that they suffered a drastic decline following their targeting by commercial fishermen. The stock has recovered somewhat after 19 years of a ban on commercial fishing, but not to the historical level.

BTW, that document you quote is not a stock assessment. That is an assessment of the level of threat faced by the species, in a global context. A stock assessment contains real data such as the estimated numbers of fish, their spatial distribution, their population composition in terms of age, size at age, spawning age, juvenile stocks, etc. Relying on a document that says bass are not threatened on a European-wide scale does not give any credence to an argument to reopen a local fishery. The document you quote gives no data on the status of bass in Irish waters, or the area mentioned in the FIF proposal, therefore it is irrelevant.

As a qualified fisheries scientist, I think I can put my emotions to one side alright and look at this dispassionately. I still come to the same conclusion. Historical events tell me that Bass were once abundant in Irish waters, that they suffered a drastic decline following their targeting by commercial fishermen. The stock has recovered somewhat after 19 years of a ban on commercial fishing, but not to the historical level.

BTW, that document you quote is not a stock assessment. That is an assessment of the level of threat faced by the species, in a global context. A stock assessment contains real data such as the estimated numbers of fish, their spatial distribution, their population composition in terms of age, size at age, spawning age, juvenile stocks, etc. Relying on a document that says Bass are not threatened on a European-wide scale does not give any credence to an argument to reopen a local fishery. The document you quote gives no data on the status of Bass in Irish waters, or the area mentioned in the FIF proposal, therefore it is irrelevant.

It's a summary from an assesment carried out on a stock known as, you guessed it European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) by a couple of bodkins known as Freyhof, J. & Kottelat, M. But then, as a qualified fisheries scientist, you would know all that

As a qualified fisheries scientist could you also shed any light on why there is no TAC on Bass?

As a qualified fisheries scientist, I think I can put my emotions to one side alright and look at this dispassionately. I still come to the same conclusion. Historical events tell me that Bass were once abundant in Irish waters, that they suffered a drastic decline following their targeting by commercial fishermen. The stock has recovered somewhat after 19 years of a ban on commercial fishing, but not to the historical level.

BTW, that document you quote is not a stock assessment. That is an assessment of the level of threat faced by the species, in a global context. A stock assessment contains real data such as the estimated numbers of fish, their spatial distribution, their population composition in terms of age, size at age, spawning age, juvenile stocks, etc. Relying on a document that says Bass are not threatened on a European-wide scale does not give any credence to an argument to reopen a local fishery. The document you quote gives no data on the status of Bass in Irish waters, or the area mentioned in the FIF proposal, therefore it is irrelevant.

It's a summary from an assesment carried out on a stock known as, you guessed it European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) by a couple of bodkins known as Freyhof, J. & Kottelat, M. But then, as a qualified fisheries scientist, you would know all that

As a qualified fisheries scientist could you also shed any light on why there is no TAC on Bass?

Look, off the top of my head I could publish a report on Arctic char, and come to the same conclusion as those "bodkins" (did you mean boffins?), that Arctic char are not threatened. And they're not - on a species-wide scale. However, here in Ireland, at the extreme of their range, they certainly are threatened, and commercial fishing would never be allowed. Same goes for bass - here in Ireland they only reproduce successfully in occasional years, when conditions are right. So stocks here have a low capacity to rebound from pressures such as overfishing. Just because bass on a Europe-wide scale are not threatened, does not make them capable of withstanding serious commercial fishing pressure in this part of their range.
On a species level yes, it wouldn't matter if they were fished out in Ireland, but that doesn't make it ok. So the document is irrelevant.
I have no idea why there is no TAC, I'm not working in marine fisheries and don't have access to that info.

RockHunter wrote:
SandTiger wrote:
Hi RockHunter, aren't the areas you mention already closed, as shown in links that I have already posted?

Not sure what link you are referring to or the point you are making.
Do you mean closed to commercial Bass fishing? - of course they are, the opening up of that is what we are trying to stop.


Please see my post above re: Biologically Sensitive Areas (BSA)

Are you under the impression that these areas are closed to fishing or what???
In the same document if you look at the charts for distribution of landings by Irish vessels >15 m (Figs. 2.2.1 to 2.2.4) you will see that there are high concentrations of a whole range of species caught within the "Biological Sensitive Area". Bradan would obviously know a lot more about this than me, but since it dosen't seem to apply to most species you can be damn sure that the FIF want to fish for bass in the BSA as it doesn't seem to have stopped them from fishing for most other species.

In the same document is states that "access for foreign vessels to the BSA is restricted" what does "restricted" really mean?
and "effort regimes also apply to Irish vessels fishing the the BSA" - "effort regimes" - what does that mean??? - by the looks of the landings charts Irish vessels have concentrated their efforts in the BSA.
Why should the FIF think of bass as a special case and omit the BSA from the area of their proposal - get real!!!!

Look, off the top of my head I could publish a report on Arctic char, and come to the same conclusion as those "bodkins" (did you mean boffins?), that Arctic char are not threatened. And they're not - on a species-wide scale. However, here in Ireland, at the extreme of their range, they certainly are threatened, and commercial fishing would never be allowed. Same goes for Bass - here in Ireland they only reproduce successfully in occasional years, when conditions are right. So stocks here have a low capacity to rebound from pressures such as overfishing. Just because Bass on a Europe-wide scale are not threatened, does not make them capable of withstanding serious commercial fishing pressure in this part of their range.
On a species level yes, it wouldn't matter if they were fished out in Ireland, but that doesn't make it ok. So the document is irrelevant.
I have no idea why there is no TAC, I'm not working in marine fisheries and don't have access to that info.

Good afternoon Bradan and thank you for your very insightful post. Presumably you are in possession of scientific data to support this reduced breeding pattern that is unique to the Irish Inshore Bass population?

Maybe you have an opinion on why there is no TAC imposed in relation to Bass?

Are you under the impression that these areas are closed to fishing or what???
In the same document if you look at the charts for distribution of landings by Irish vessels >15 m (Figs. 2.2.1 to 2.2.4) you will see that there are high concentrations of a whole range of species caught within the "Biological Sensitive Area". Bradan would obviously know a lot more about this than me, but since it dosen't seem to apply to most species you can be damn sure that the FIF want to fish for Bass in the BSA as it doesn't seem to have stopped them from fishing for most other species.

In the same document is states that "access for foreign vessels to the BSA is restricted" what does "restricted" really mean?
and "effort regimes also apply to Irish vessels fishing the the BSA" - "effort regimes" - what does that mean??? - by the looks of the landings charts Irish vessels have concentrated their efforts in the BSA.
Why should the FIF think of Bass as a special case and omit the BSA from the area of their proposal - get real!!!!

Are you deliberately trying to be stupid or what?

The issue is not what you or I believe may be the case but getting the FIF to actually state their intentions in relation to Bass fisheries within the BSA. It's really that simple.

Its not me that's stupid!!!

The FIF had made no mention of BSA - so they have obviously no intention of taking it into consideration, otherwise it would OBVIOUSLY stated in the proposal - as far as I am aware they have requested that the ban on bass fishing by Irish vessels be lifted south of 51 30' N

Taking about stupid - you seemed to be under the impression that the BSA was closed to commercial fishing yet the document you quoted clearly shows that high concentrations of a large number of species have been caught within the BSA by Irish vessels.

Its not me that's stupid!!!

The FIF had made no mention of BSA - so they have obviously no intention of taking it into consideration, otherwise it would OBVIOUSLY stated in the proposal - as far as I am aware they have requested that the ban on Bass fishing by Irish vessels be lifted south of 51 30' N

Taking about stupid - you seemed to be under the impression that the BSA was closed to commercial fishing yet the document you quoted clearly shows that high concentrations of a large number of species have been caught within the BSA by Irish vessels.

Right, before I lose the will to live, point me in the direction of the FIF proposal please.

Good afternoon Bradan and thank you for your very insightful post. Presumably you are in possession of scientific data to support this reduced breeding pattern that is unique to the Irish Inshore Bass population?

Maybe you have an opinion on why there is no TAC imposed in relation to Bass?[/quote]

I am not in possession of that data, I don't have to be - do your own Google search. Look up Edward Fahy, he has published articles on this and is the foremost scientist in Ireland on bass. Look in a science library and you will find articles citing the relationship between temperature and the critical first year growth of bass, the determining factor in whether you get a strong year class or not. Only in occasional years in Irish waters do juvenile bass make sufficient gains to survive the winter, and this is temperature dependent. Further south, in the south of England, France and throughout the rest of their range, water temperatures are higher in summer and enable faster growth, thus higher survival.

You seem to be suggesting that we should have to provide facts and figures to prevent the commercial fishery being reopened - but the shoe must be on the other foot. Without sufficient data on stocks of bass in Irish waters, commercial fishing should not be allowed. Perhaps you have heard of the Precautionary Principle - in a fisheries context it can be summarised by the following statement: "in the absence of sufficient data no exploitation should be permitted". The most recent stock advice from the Marine Institute here on bass stated that bass should continue to be managed as an angling stock only.


And no, I don't have an opinion on the TAC. As I said, I don't work in marine fisheries, and I don't have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the CFP. In Irish waters, no landings are allowed, therefore no TAC for Ireland. I don't know what the situation is in your country. Do your own research.

I'm getting bored trying to educate you, I think you're just here being obtuse to troll the thread, and your infantile contributions to the petition underline that suspicion.

You seem to be suggesting that we should have to provide facts and figures to prevent the commercial fishery being reopened - but the shoe must be on the other foot. Without sufficient data on stocks of Bass in Irish waters, commercial fishing should not be allowed. Perhaps you have heard of the Precautionary Principle - in a fisheries context it can be summarised by the following statement: "in the absence of sufficient data no exploitation should be permitted". The most recent stock advice from the Marine Institute here on Bass stated that Bass should continue to be managed as an angling stock only.

Well that's brilliant news Bradan. Based on what you are saying, there is absolutely no possibility of any Bass Fisheries being opened to the Irish Commercial Fleet due to the Precautionary Principle and recent guidance from the Marine Institute. So all those anglers that were concerned, can breath a huge sigh of relief and get on with their fishing. No need to waste time signing petitions, making posters, lobbying the Dáil or forming groups to combat the FIF proposal, because, as you have now helpfully pointed out, it's a non-starter from the begining.

I'm sure all the many concerned anglers will be indebted to you for putting their minds at rest, over this matter.

You seem to be suggesting that we should have to provide facts and figures to prevent the commercial fishery being reopened - but the shoe must be on the other foot. Without sufficient data on stocks of Bass in Irish waters, commercial fishing should not be allowed. Perhaps you have heard of the Precautionary Principle - in a fisheries context it can be summarised by the following statement: "in the absence of sufficient data no exploitation should be permitted". The most recent stock advice from the Marine Institute here on Bass stated that Bass should continue to be managed as an angling stock only.

Well that's brilliant news Bradan. Based on what you are saying, there is absolutely no possibility of any Bass Fisheries being opened to the Irish Commercial Fleet due to the Precautionary Principle and recent guidance from the Marine Institute. So all those anglers that were concerned, can breath a huge sigh of relief and get on with their fishing. No need to waste time signing petitions, making posters, lobbying the Dáil or forming groups to combat the FIF proposal, because, as you have now helpfully pointed out, it's a non-starter from the begining.

I'm sure all the many concerned anglers will be indebted to you for putting their minds at rest, over this matter.

Well there's quoting what I said out of context, and there's being facetious. Perhaps you could clarify which you were attempting, or was it both?

I said commercial fishing should not be allowed. I based that on the lack of data and the application of the precautionary principle. Thats not the same as saying it won't be allowed, which is what you are trying to claim I said.

If you continue to be facetious and quote out of context to try to deceive people, I won't be debating this issue any further with you. Your posts to date, and your attempts to make a mockery of the petition, tell me you're just being mischievous and not taking this issue seriously. In short, you're a troll.

Well there's quoting what I said out of context, and there's being facetious. Perhaps you could clarify which you were attempting, or was it both?

I said commercial fishing should not be allowed. I based that on the lack of data and the application of the precautionary principle. Thats not the same as saying it won't be allowed, which is what you are trying to claim I said.

If you continue to be facetious and quote out of context to try to deceive people, I won't be debating this issue any further with you. Your posts to date, and your attempts to make a mockery of the petition, tell me you're just being mischievous and not taking this issue seriously. In short, you're a troll.

I'll ignore your insults Bradan, especially the one about being a short troll. Despite my injured feelings, I shall soldier on in the same constructive manner that I have been conducting myself, throughout this interesting discussion. Do you think it would be fair to assume that FIF already have data in relation to the areas that they are requesting to land and retain in? Do you not think they have considered the points that you have raised?

Hello to the both of you gentlemen.

I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all posts that you have both contributed to this thread. I'd like to inform you both that you have been highly educational to me through the information in your posts.

Out of fear that I (and more importantly bass) will lose out through the potential absence of your posts, I sincerely hope that the raised emotions that are clearly evident in your discussion, do not result in either one of you deciding to stop posting to this thread.

What has struck me is the huge potential you guys are showing through working together on this issue. Through a rather strange course of events, what has transpired as a result of your discussion, is an insight into how this debate might actually fold out when it comes to the Government listening to both sides of the argument and having to make a decision on this proposal.

So I would urge everybody concerned to take note!!

I love bass

John D.

Hello to the both of you gentlemen.

I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all posts that you have both contributed to this thread. I'd like to inform you both that you have been highly educational to me through the information in your posts.

Out of fear that I (and more importantly Bass) will lose out through the potential absence of your posts, I sincerely hope that the raised emotions that are clearly evident in your discussion, do not result in either one of you deciding to stop posting to this thread.

What has struck me is the huge potential you guys are showing through working together on this issue. Through a rather strange course of events, what has transpired as a result of your discussion, is an insight into how this debate might actually fold out when it comes to the Government listening to both sides of the argument and having to make a decision on this proposal.

So I would urge everybody concerned to take note!!

I love Bass

John D.

Hello John D and thank you once again for taking the time to make another very kind post. I have also enjoyed contributing to this thread as it has acted as an invaluable springboard in assisting me to go off and look at other areas of fisheries around your coast. I defiantly need to spend a few hours studying the legislation surrounding the RSA box as the available data is scantily scattered around various EU enactments but it would appear that any vessel that is 10m or over is subjected to some very heavy restrictions, if they wish to fish the box which appears to have been introduced for Hake recovery.

I certainly have no intention of ceasing to post on this very interesting discussion and would equally hope the Bradan & Rockhopper continue with their valuable input also.

Davey B

Oh, meant to add a piccy of area VII, as you cav see it is a huge area that is broken down into many sub areas...



Edit: Hmmm... for some reason I can't sus out how to embed images in phpBB, so...

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur ... G%26um%3D1

Apologies for the long link