EU Monitoring of Recreational Fisheries (Article 47)

Here's some questions being asked in UK.

http://www.ssacn.org/2008/12/04/questio ... rticle-47/

Yappo

They are going to start discussing this amendment in jan 2009.I personally will be talking to my mep for the west Mr Jim Higgins next week on this issue and would like to be able to give him a list of questions/querys that are relevent,but i think the list should be drawn up by us,the irish sea anglers.Anybody that has any questions they would like to be included be very welcome.I am a full time carer and work from home all week ,and i have the time to draw up a list that can be posted here first for approval!

What is the definition of "catches"? I assume they are really referring to the keeping or killing of fish, rather than "catching". It's an important distinction in the recreational sector and one that's obvious to us, but might not be obvious to someone skippering a desk.

I assume the regulations will be set at EU level but the implementation will be up to the governments of individual member states. The devil seems to be in the detail here so I guess we should also be asking our own ministers or TDs how regulations like these might be implemented at a local level.

Carcass tagging seems to be one way this might be implemented, with the number of tags available based on the size of the quota. However, thats based on numbers rather than aggregated weight so I'm not sure how that would play out. Average weights?

(Personally, I think carcass tagging is good way to go for a lot of species, regardless of the whole licensing issue, but maybe I'm going off topic ...)

[i]Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag member state.[/i

]

- I would be interested in finding out where baitfish (Mackeral) fit into this plan?

- Bass are not commercially targetted in this country. So are anglers going to be prohibited from targetting bass?

- There's no quota for Bluefin tuna in this country. Does this stop charter boats from targetting this species?

- There's a ban on commercial fleets targetting cod. Will this ban be enforced on anglers?

A short segment on the RTE SixOne news:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1216/6news_ ... 3,null,230

(You might have to click "play clip" on the right to kick off the video.)

Re: impossible to police recreational anglers!!

Two points to note imo:
1. it is a lot easier for the fisheries officers to catch guys like us going back to our vehicles if we exceed some quota than the real "poachers" if they want to. As I keep very few of my catch i'm not too concerned but I may as well point out that I've heard of several shore anglers being stopped and checked by fisheries officers this season.
2. how many rivers etc are being plundered while our freshwater buddies are being checked for all sorts of restrictions, tagging, quotas etc. Every year more and more salmon and seatrout anglers are being fined for minor infringements while it seems less and less netters are being caught and successfully prosecuted!

Re: impossible to police recreational anglers!!

Two points to note imo:
1. it is a lot easier for the fisheries officers to catch guys like us going back to our vehicles if we exceed some quota than the real "poachers" if they want to. As I keep very few of my catch i'm not too concerned but I may as well point out that I've heard of several shore anglers being stopped and checked by fisheries officers this season.
2. how many rivers etc are being plundered while our freshwater buddies are being checked for all sorts of restrictions, tagging, quotas etc. Every year more and more salmon and seatrout anglers are being fined for minor infringements while it seems less and less netters are being caught and successfully prosecuted!

Fisheries officers just don't have the power. In my local town, the fisheries officers came upon a bunch of poachers on a narrow road. The poachers drove past them by going into the field, then sped off. Over 100 salmon in that car, fisheries officers could do nothing but watch.

I think the starting point for sea anglers on this one should be trying to get the message across that the level of predation on species caused by individuals using rods is virtually negligible in comparison to commercial boats. (if anybody has any doubt about this, we could point out to them the reality of the few boxes of fish a charter boat might take in after a rare, brilliant day's fishing, versus the tonnes that are landed from commercial boats) And i think we should be trying to get that message across to our TDs rapidly.
But there are some things we should bear in mind: The view of the Marine Institute probably is that killing fish is killing fish and that all this predation should be taken into account when setting sustainable quotas. (I think if those quotas were accurately taking into account the tiny effect of anglers, the difference would be miniscule)
So the obvious question is whether cost of the adminstration and bureacracy of a system of the type they seem to be proposing makes any sense in the context of the scale of the problem. Sounds like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even if there is a nut at all, which I'm not sure of.
And maybe we should bear in mind the wholesale massacre of fish that nobody wants for the pot, and some of which are thrown back dead cos they have been brought up from such depths, that occasionally happens on charter boats. (A hardened charter skipper was complaining to me about this recently, after hosting a comp)
On the broader point, if there does have to be restrictions, what about bag and size limits for threatened whitefish, similar to that which we operate for bass in ireland, and which I think anglers are happy to obey?

How many people on this site would object to having a restriction 5-6 fish, a year, of each species?(Mackeral aside).

Apart from Mackeral, I don't believe I have kept a fish (Except for a few salmon) for 3 years. Apart from a few species where I may keep one a year, I don't believe I will be keeping anything above that. It's not why I fish.

I personally would welcome anything that would have stopped the masacre of Wrasse that I witnessed in St. Johns Point one day.

It's a real shame that something like this needs to happen. Sea angling is where most fathers introduce their sons to the world of fishing. If a license was introduced, we may see the sport dying out. This is especially noticeable on alot of the salmon rivers of late, very few if any young children fishing the rivers.

Jasus, Anthony! 5 or 6 a year????? I mean, surely an angler should be entitled to take a fish for his dinner, and one for the next day, if he goes out fishing for a day (and bear in mind, even the best of us aren't going out every day). I don't go fishin primarily for the pot either, but a fine fresh eatin fish is a helluva fringe benefit.
I would have thought a bag limit of two fish per day, plus a minimum length, like the bass situation, would be more than adequate.

How many people on this site would object to having a restriction 5-6 fish, a year, of each species?(Mackeral aside).

I think different limits for different species are called for. For example, my own feeling is that we need a carcass tagging scheme for Bass along the same lines as the Salmon tags. (max. 10 tags spread throughout the year, isn't it?) If every angler was consistently taking significantly more than 10 fish per year, I think we would have a serious problem, for two treasons. Firstly, if everyone did it, I don't believe it would be sustainable. Secondly, if every angler did it, it won't be long before someone asked why the commercial bass fishery is closed.

Similar arguments can be made for other species, perhaps Codling, plaice, whiting (of eating size), etc.

A lot of the anglers concerned about quotas will use arguments that are in some way related to perceived "rights" or "entitlements". These are the same sorts of arguments that many in the commercial sector will use. Responsibilities go hand in hand with rights and I think anglers need to be prepared to set an example and, to some extent, to take some of the pain.

Of course, as Donogh said, recreational angling accounts for only a very small component of the overall fish take. However, as sea anglers we're competing with other stakeholders in a game where perception is essential. By accepting the right sort of quota system for recreational angling, we could send a very positive, strong message, without impacting in a significant way on our angling.

I certainly wouldn't object to some form of quota system. Like the license issue, whether it's widely enforced or not is probably irrelevant.

Lad's I think you're getting sidetracked here.

All of the concern is not about bag limits or MLS it's not even about angling as we know it. This is about anglers having to apply for a percentage of the EU's commercial fishing quota. Now lets not forget here, anglers are not commercially fishing if they are then they are not anglers. I wonder how long is it going to be before the EU start to muddle with other things like for example the current bass laws, opening bass up to commercial exploitation from all of Europe's commercial fleet. This may well see a restriction on the number of angling licenses issued. I have also seen mentioned that it is not just fish landed that will be affected but that when quotas are exhausted that the targeting of fish even for C&R will not be permitted

I don't know how or who will police all this but that is hardly the issue, the fact that you may never be caught is not the way to look at this, we are not poachers! We need to get the angling representation bodies and tourism bodies to get clarification and to make lots of noise asap!

[quote="teacher"]I think different limits for different species are called for. [/quote]

A very sensible suggestion. The angling bodies should be proactive and some up with something along the lines of what they have in California (see http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/pdfs/oceanfish2008.pdf), even if as a strawman proposal. However, allocation of catch/keep limits and their circumstances for all species may be tough, given the data points on all species and method of being caught are not available across the EU - and yes, they probably need to be in that context for competition over migration of tourist expenditure reasons ("Catch data for recreational sea angling is very scarce. EU’s Data Collection Regulation only requires from Member States catch data for tuna, salmon and cod." - http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/gover ... tta_en.pdf).

So, what should these figures be for species?

If I am not mistaken aren't EU fish quotas in metric tonnage? So, how this translates to numbers of individual fish over some size limit in any meaningful way, I am not sure.

[quote="teacher"]I certainly wouldn't object to some form of quota system. [/quote]

Based on what I've seen elsewhere, me neither. I think the reality is that the majority of anglers would have a hard time breaking most of the limits anyway of the more "desired species" unless it's ludicrously low and applied over more than a variable of number of days.

Note: A quota does not mean that anglers need to stop campaigning against destructive commercial fishing, but rather come to the negotiation with clean hands.

And, to develop the point of responsibility - why stop at quotas? In California there are also rules about depths you can fish for certain species (120 ft max for some, as they won't survive returning beyond that), and how you can fish. There's a ban on more than 2 hooks on traces in operation where I fish in Ca, and yes there are signs in stores saying that you need to cut traces off yer three hook flappers and fly rigs [feathers basically] before use and Dept of Fish and Game officers will actually cut such rigs down to size themselves if they see them. Imagine that on boats out of bulloch or the beach at greystones? I saw one angler hit with a 900 dollar fine - on the spot for having a 22 inch shortling (i.e., lingcod under 24 inches) in his possession. Ouch!

Now, where's that Plaicebook petition about Article 47?

I think the reality is that the majority of anglers would have a hard time breaking most of the limits anyway of the more "desired species" unless it's ludicrously low and applied over more than a variable of number of days.

I don't know all about that Uvox! The commercials have been short on quota for years! What happens when the commercials use up all the quotas?

As I said in the previous post... The worrying thing here is the fact that anglers must apply for a percentage of commercial quota, after all we are not commercially fishing! This has much more to do with the EU's mismanagement of the commercial sector than it does with angling. Lets look at it another way, Ireland's Commercial tonnage has been reduced to a mere shadow of what it once was under EU law. The only way I can see to implement this new fiasco is to introduce a mandatory sea angling license and the main concerns I have with this are just how much is that going to cost will it price the average angler out of the picture! And an even bigger concern is just how many will be issued, will there be enough to go around, and what restrictions will be applied! Will we see entire areas closed off to angling when a quota is reached? How much will the quota be reduced by in the next round of quotas etc

We could see a whole big can of worms open up here! Has anyone heard anything from the governing bodies of this sport on what actions they are taking on this?

Quotas are not adhered to by commercial fleets Not going to blow the whistle on anyone. But don't believe they are.

Having read through this thread a number of thoughts have come to me. Mostly I think this is typical EU bureaucracy gone mad. And I am surprised at the attitude that this might be a good thing. When Dun Laoghaire Rathdown CoCo decided to tell people where they could/couldn’t fish everyone was up in arms: I don’t recall one person who thought that that was a good idea.

The EU, fish stocks and the fishing industry in general, would be better served if they addressed the real issues here and stopped flaffing around with bureaucratic cr*p.

They could, for example, ban beam trawlers and stop the wholesale destruction of vast parts of the sea-bed every time one of these vessels make a voyage.

They could subsidise boats to change over to line fishing and thereby preserve smaller fish and prevent by-catch.

They could subsidise boats to covert their nets from diamond pattern nets to square pattern nets. The square nets do not close up as the net fills, as diamond nets do, and smaller fish can escape.

And finally they could enforce the existing laws and regulations a bit more. I was in northern Spain a while back and flat-fish smaller than my hand were for sale, and selling, in shops around the market and in tapas bars.

If these people get their way we will have no rights over our own coastline after a while: some gobsh*te who probably never saw the sea will be dictating to us what, when and where. Remember, these are the same bunch of asses who wanted to dictate the shape of peppers, bananas, and other vegetables!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 39135.html

From Angling Notes

ANGLING NOTES: EUROPEAN Union Commission proposals announced last week to impose catch quotas on sea angling will have zero impact on sustainability, but are a direct attack on the Irish angling tourism industry, according to Fine Gael tourism spokesperson, Olivia Mitchell.

While anglers and commercial fishermen strive to catch the same species, EU officials are seeking to impose controls on sea angling and to deduct catch numbers from commercial fishing industry quotas. Equipped with this information, the proposal aims to allocate proportional shares to each nation.

"Expenditure by overseas anglers in Ireland is estimated at €66 million per year. Why attack it? These ridiculous proposals have come out of nowhere," Mitchell says.

The Irish Charter Skippers' Association (ICSA) has written to Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tony Killeen, to voice its opposition.

It says the entire catch of the charter fleet would not equal the returns of one medium-sized trawler, adding that the proposals will further diminish already reduced quotas and create a huge volume of administration and paperwork for charter boat operators on the basis of a very small catch.

"Would fish caught by French or Dutch anglers be deducted from French/Dutch quotas? Imagine two teenagers walking along Enniscrone pier with a bag of mackerel and being told by a department official that the quota for mackerel had been reached and they must dump their fish? It's EU bureaucracy gone mad."

The ICSA has sought an urgent meeting with the minister to discuss the issues.

Hugh O'Rorke, of the Irish Federation of Sea Anglers, says: "While it may be possible to monitor catches in competitions, it will be impossible to police the thousands of home-based and tourist anglers who visit our coastline each year".

yes you are right there was a lot of fish being taken by angling boats but from what i have seen the majourity was always taken or given away the fact i am going to be worried about is that they ARE GOING TO IMPLMENT A ROD LINCE it might start of at five € and proble five years later be €50 and contuine to rise. the exspensive of going sea angling is enough by the time ya bUy your gear pay for boat hire or bUy your own boat or kayak and now they want to put more expense on us it is going to do noting for toursim noting for local angling shops it will increase goverment spending beacause you will need more fishery officers look at the gewbarra situation local anglers being kicked of there own river that they have fished some for over fifty years YES IF THEY DO SUCEED IN TAKING IN A LAW GOVERNING SEA ANGLING WE ALL NEED TO HAVE OUR SAY BUT HOW DO WE DO THAT

I wouldn't get too het up about the tourism industry argument. They've priced themselves out of the market argument long ago for both people coming from abroad and locals through a sheer greed that has a way bigger impact than this would. Still, the nicely declining economy should take care of that.

As for appealing to Tony Killeen, ah yes, the great letter writer of the South West... forget it.

There's local elections coming up, that's the time to move on this, particularly as the current lot are up for a drubbing and panicking already.

But, let's see what the official angling bodies do about this. Maybe they can even manage to get a letter in the Irish Times in response to this. It's not that hard....

I wait with baited breath.

How many people on this site would object to having a restriction 5-6 fish, a year, of each species?(Mackeral aside).

I think different limits for different species are called for. For example, my own feeling is that we need a carcass tagging scheme for Bass along the same lines as the Salmon tags. (max. 10 tags spread throughout the year, isn't it?)

I certainly wouldn't object to some form of quota system. Like the license issue, whether it's widely enforced or not is probably irrelevant.

Lets face it, the carcass tagging scheme for salmon does not work in practice. I have no problem wiht a quota or indeed a tagging scheme but I would have a problem if it operated like the salmon one which is becoming more and more of a joke each year. It seems like a good idea but it just isnt being administered properly at all.

Remember, the salmon anglers started off with 20 tags a year and then ten. On a lot of rivers there are now no tags. Then on others there are different coloured tags etc etc. Some of those rivers would be better off open on a catch and release system with a method restriction if necessary. The people making the decisions dont know wot they are doing and definitely dont listen to the anglers on the ground. I cant see it being any different here.

IMO the tagging idea is good but i just cant see it being operated correctly. It could end up being a nightmare for anglers. If sea anglers want to suggest a tagging scheme then we need to come up with a workable version.

sk