A little late I know, but I have only just read the the post by "Toerag" on the 18th Sept, in which he asks specifically for my take on the fisheries bag limits proposals.
First of all, I should say that I think the post by "Toerag" was well written, very informative and in almost all respects appeared accurate.
My take on this matter then, is as follows.
1. Firstly, if I was a commercial fisherman in Alderney, who over recent years witnessed a huge increase in visiting charter boats, and if I believed all the reports that these boats were catching vast numbers of fish daily for selling in the UK, by anglers with a "winch it up and slaughter" everything attitude, then I would want something done about it. So I can understand the concerns of the local fishermen and I can see why we are now in the situation that we are in.
2. The problem is however, that whilst the fishing effort by visiting charter boats has increased, I believe that it is still well below what the Guernsey Fisheries believe it to be. Sadly, inacurate reporting by local newspapers has put the visiting angler in a bad light. A am a relatively infrequent visitor to Alderney with just 5 trips per year, but I can tell you that I have never had anglers on board that haven't been willing to release a substantial part of their catch. They have all voluntarily accepted a boat imposed increase to the minimum landing size of turbot, brill and bass and many have released fish even bigger than our own 45cm limit. No fish have ever been returned to be sold and although this, as "Toerag" comments, is difficult to police as a whole. I can police it on my own boat. Simply by the numbers game. If an angler is keeping what I consider to be an unrealistic amount of fish, then I simply release subsequent fish, whatever the size. Anglers soon get the hint, but the reality however, is that this rarely happens because most modern day anglers are already conservation minded. Now I know that not all anglers adopt the same principles as the anglers on my boat, but I do believe that the vast majority of anglers do. If a more accurate picture of the modern day angler had been presented in earlier newspaper articles then I am sure that the current proposals in the consultation document would not have been so heavily weighted against us.
3. You can never raise the subject of fish conservation to much and the consultation document produced by Guernsey claims to be in the interests of conservation, so that has got to be a good thing. Sadly though, the proposals currently on the table do nothing for conservation. What they actually do is re-distribute the fish from the recreational sector to the commercial sector as returned fish are simply there to be caught again by those that will not have a catch limit. Further more, the proposals will actually increase the effort on the flatfish. All the named species except for turbot and brill are relatively easy to catch and therefore anglers quotas will quickly be met. Effort will then be maintained on the flatties where catching two brill and two turbot per angler may be harder to achieve. Boats may continue to fish until the quota is caught Potentially, a vessel with eight anglers could legally catch and retain up to thirty-two flatties. Whilst this amount can be achieved now on occasions, the total catch on most trips to Alderney throughout the year fall well below these numbers.
4. I welcome efforts by Guernsey to safeguard their stocks of fish for the future. But any measures that may be put into force need to work, be fair and drawn up with an accurate assessment of the needs and current practises of all stakeholders. Maintaining fish stocks for the future ensures a healthy commercial fishing industry will remain but the tourism industry, especially in the case of Alderney, also relies on healthy fish stocks and the ability of anglers to catch them. When considering conservation measures, due regard needs to be given to the potential affects on both the commercial fishing industry and tourism.
5. I believe that the way ahead is through increased minimum landing sizes rather than individual limits. This will affect all stakeholders and put us on a level playing field. This would be a real affective conservation measure that would eventually prove to be beneficial to all. It is an easily policeable measure and would remove the un-policeable practice of "high grading" which potentially could be carried out under the current proposals.
The points above are all my own views, although having spoken to many other skippers and anglers, it seems that they are shared by most. "Toerag" asks what skippers have been doing in response to the fisheries proposals. The answer is, "a lot". Skipper who visit Alderney have formed the Alderney Charter Skippers Association and key players such as. Roger Bayzand, Paul Whittal, Colin Dukes, and Chris Caines have been working on our behalf. Meetings have already taken place with Guernsey Sea Fisheries and many constructive letters have been sent by other skippers. The Association is supporting conservation measures and is recommending that these should done through increases to minimum size limits and not bag limits. We are also recommending the use of log books to be retained on board.
Finally, one small critism of "Toerag's" post. He mentions the change in style of fishing photographs this year and describes pictures of anglers releasing turbot as a sign of guilt. Not so. This is education. This is to show that we are not the "winch it in and slaughter it" brigade as perceived by some. It is also marketing. Marketing is attracting the kind of customers that you want, rather than advertising that attracts customers that want you. I for one am making sure that any anglers that book me for an Alderney trip, know that they will be required to release some of their catch. Check out the Alderney page on my website. It is clearly aimed to deter any anglers that think they are going to load up with fish.
Kind regards, Steve
