Flamborough No Fishing Zone - Meeting

[Phil A]

Glenn change Brid to Flamborough

[bassyken]

Was at the meeting too, nice to finally meet you Glenn. The area proposed for the no take zone is from Sewerby step to Danes Dyke and stretching out to sea 700metres from the cliff face, as Glenn says if this goes ahead this means no fishing what-so-ever in this area, no bait collecting, no potting, no nothing..

As Glenn says i personally don't think English Nature will settle for just this and are keen to get an area on the north side of the headland. Robbie Fisher who chaired the meeting for Natural England was making all the right noises but personally I cannot see what scientific information can be learnt from the small area agreed and hope this isn't just a foot in the door /thin edge of the wedge etc...

Ken

[northbayotter]

Letter from Leanne Stockdale

19 February 2008
 

Dear Sir/Madam
A meeting with the angling sector is to be held at 11am on the 23 February 2008 at the Bridlington Rugby Union Football Club, Dukes Park, Queensgate, Bridlington.
 

I have decided to hold a meeting to clear up any confusion as a result of the last Flamborough Fisheries Liaison group meeting in November last year. 

The Purpose of the meeting is to:

    * Identify and resolve all areas of confusion following the meeting in November;
    * Clarify the current management of the Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation;
    * Outline the roles of the Flamborough Head Project Officer, North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee and Natural England;
    * Discuss Natural England’s ideas about designating a small experimental No Take Zone within the Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation.

 

No Take Zones (NTZs) are a type of Marine Protected Area (MPA) that provides the highest level of protection for both commercial and non-commercially valuable, marine animals.  

The government are committed to introducing additional Marine Protected Areas through the Marine Bill by 2012. They have proven to have benefit to marine wildlife and in some instances have benefited fish and shellfish of commercial and recreational value. However, because there are very few of these sites it has not proved possible to study their effects in a scientific manner. 

Natural England have requested that I help them work with local interest groups to identify a location for an experimental site that is acceptable to people who use Flamborough Head for recreational or commercial reasons. 

Essentially I think that the Environment Sector (such as Natural England) and responsible commercial and recreational fishing interests all want similar things – a healthy and productive marine environment with abundant wildlife some of which you can eat (e.g. fish and shellfish) and some of which you cant (e.g. sponges and sea slugs) and I would like to work with the fishing industry and recreational sector to see what benefits we can achieve.  Essentially the best way to do this is to sit down and agree how to do this at a local level. 
 
 
 

This is not part of a staged plan to shut down fishing at Flamborough Head.  I will be contacting the commercial sector to arrange a similar meeting to discuss these issues too, with a representative from the commercial sector invited to the forthcoming meeting, to ensure there is transparency throughout the process.

I look forward to seeing you on the 23 February.

Yours sincerely

Leanne Stockdale

Flamborough Head Project Officer

in the above post ms. stockdale states that this meeting was to clear up earlier issues with particular regard to confusion created at previous meeting held in november relating to proposals to create an aforesaid experimental no take zone

(1) why was there ever need for confusion at all in the first place?

 (2) whilst i was personally not able to attend the earlier meeting(s) owing to pressures of work, 
-i am in regular contact with those that did, -and drawing from their veiws / opinions it was very obvious to me that the greatest uncertainties  and confusion were certainly created by those holding the meeting's total in-ability or apparrent unwillingness to clearly state just what their actual intent/extent of plans under consideration with particular regard to how big the area/ its location under consideration by them and apparrently known unto them alone.

-o.k., -so that said, how on earth can they honestly expect to hold a consultation on such a project when clearly the consultees are not being provided with the information as to that which they are being consulted about, upon which to even begin to formulate an informed decision?

as those who attended today know, -the main issue was: -
 what in fact is actually at stake with regard to geographical location / extent of area?

it now seems that they are now shifting tack and more inclined to consult and engage the interested / affected parties
with intent to reach mutual compromise between us (all user groups) and natural england.

-it only now remains to be seen whether the agreement reached today will serve to acheive their intended study/experimental n.t.z. needs which they are pushing so hard for.

however one very experienced and well respected gentleman present expressed the concern / belief that this concession would probably for the future prove to be 'the thin end of the wedge' .............
-i for one believe he may well be proved right

i also believe that ms. stockdale and her associate (natural england representative) mr robbie fisher whilst being very accommodating and polite are simply the apparent still surface of some of the very deep and dangerous waters that lie ahead for the future of sea angling.

they (and their superiors) would do well to remember that the human infrastructure and associated activities which are entirely dependant upon a healthy marine enviroment with all its flora and fauna, are just as fragile and can be just as easily permanently damaged as the environment/and life forms  they are seeking to protect.

[Baramundi Bob]

they (and their superiors) would do well to remember that the human infrastructure and associated activities which are entirely dependant upon a healthy marine enviroment with all its flora and fauna, are just as fragile and can be just as easily permanently damaged as the environment/and life forms  they are seeking to protect.

That's a fantastic point John. Well put.

[wec]

it's a very small area ,sewerby to danes dyke (south side dyke), what on earth are they gonna learn from that?

[stuartmac]

Hi John
You ask why there was any need for confusion in the first place at the November meeting. Well as one that attended and instigated the preparation of the "Inshore" version of the minutes I can perhaps clarify the situation. We the consultees listened to Robbie Fishers presentation, which he tried in vane to repeat on Saturday and we agreed to the area that was agreed on Saturday. However the NESFC Environmental Officer said it was too small. In Robbie Fisher's defence he did not at that meeting commit either way but appeared to bow to the NESFC view. Now at Saturday's meeting there were at least nine members of the NESFC present and at no time did any of them mention size or location and although they offered to answer any questions on NESFC policy etc no questions were directed on this aspect. I think both you, Glen and Ken are right to be cycnical about NEs subsequent intentions. But as I have said many times before many of the incursions into our sport are probably inevitable but if you don't sit in the kitchen you can't complain that the dinner is spoilt. What Saturday proved is that if sufficient people attend then your voice is heard. Also those who continually slag the inshore fishermen should be aware that at the meeting it was pointed out that their fixed engines (nets/pots) prevent the trawlers working the area and are therefore of benefit. They were in full support of the RSAs at the meeting and we should not loose sight of this.

[Baramundi Bob]

Its a point Big Cod makes very often Stuart. Static gear (gill nets, pots and lines) is conserving fish stocks.

[northbayotter]

Hi John
You ask why there was any need for confusion in the first place at the November meeting. Well as one that attended and instigated the preparation of the "Inshore" version of the minutes I can perhaps clarify the situation. We the consultees listened to Robbie Fishers presentation, which he tried in vane to repeat on Saturday and we agreed to the area that was agreed on Saturday. However the NESFC Environmental Officer said it was too small. In Robbie Fisher's defence he did not at that meeting commit either way but appeared to bow to the NESFC view. Now at Saturday's meeting there were at least nine members of the NESFC present and at no time did any of them mention size or location and although they offered to answer any questions on NESFC policy etc no questions were directed on this aspect. I think both you, Glen and Ken are right to be cycnical about NEs subsequent intentions. But as I have said many times before many of the incursions into our sport are probably inevitable but if you don't sit in the kitchen you can't complain that the dinner is spoilt. What Saturday proved is that if sufficient people attend then your voice is heard. Also those who continually slag the inshore fishermen should be aware that at the meeting it was pointed out that their fixed engines (nets/pots) prevent the trawlers working the area and are therefore of benefit. They were in full support of the RSAs at the meeting and we should not loose sight of this.

hi stuart,

with all due respect stuart , -my references to "why was there ever ever need for confusion?"

-in short i reffered to the simple fact that apparrently, natural engand were un-able to get their act together at the november meeting and simply state just what they were actually looking for with regard to area/location, whilst being mindful your presence at the most recent meeting,  -it  should be blatantly obvious as being the most serious issue on the minds of virtually all present with regard to the proposals in -hand.

i am aware of the former n.e.s.f.c's former environmental officer's influence on the proceedings of the previous meeting and in my humble opinion from reports recieved his input did much to intensify the confusion and only served to worsen the situation on that occasion.

in my veiw, also i am entirely happy with the stance adopted by the assembled sea fishery commitee members/officers (notably the chairman and chief fishery officer)  that formed part of the most recent meeting , as without doubt they provided valuble input on this occasion.

as for the continual incursions into our sport which you term as 'inevitable' ,

well, i for one particularly would like, -no urge you to consider , -that where you used the word inevitable there is really another word that should replace it .....UN-ACCEPTABLE....!

as for the static gear issues -i am 100% in support of the use of static gear on our inshore grounds as it is my belief that the positive benefits definitely out-weigh the disadvatages
and i am 100% certain (as b.b. quotes 'big cod' as saying) that the inshore grounds are enhanced by the presence of static gear as by default the most destructive/indescriminate fishing method is excluded by its presence (mobile gear/trawling)

even one of the average 'joe-anglers' pet hates: -

the gill net is relativly speaking, a 'clean fishing' method  and much less of a problem than many would believe when compared to other methods of commercial fin-fishing

I am also very aware that that the commercial fishermen present at saturdays meeting are fully supportive of the R.S.A's  -rightly so !
                                                 -they have more at stake than we do it is their livlihood
-and by return i am fully supportive of them, but remember they are not the only ones whose job is at stake,

what about the brid charter fleet? -or even people like me that work in the retail angling trade?
or even the local hotels and guest houses for instance?

nature has needs and a right to exist, thrive and flourish, -true enough,
- but people have needs too, and a balance/ compromise must be struck.

[Baramundi Bob]

the inshore grounds are enhanced by the presence of static gear as by default the most destructive/indescriminate fishing method is excluded by its presence (mobile gear/trawling)

even one of the average 'joe-anglers' pet hates: -

the gill net is relativly speaking, a 'clean fishing' method  and much less of a problem than many would believe when compared to other methods of commercial fin-fishing

I am also very aware that that the commercial fishermen present at saturdays meeting are fully supportive of the R.S.A's  -rightly so !
                                                 -they have more at stake than we do it is their livlihood
-and by return i am fully supportive of them, but remember they are not the only ones whose job is at stake,

Right again John, and it is these same people who are doing no damage to our angling experience that our national body the NFSA wants blasted out the water with their Golden Mile. We should be seeking alliance with the inshore under 10 m fleet rather than making enemies of them.

[stuartmac]

Hi John
I agree with your view that unaccebtable is appropriate but I still stick with my original wording inevitable. There is insufficient concerted effort amongst anglers to STOP this progress. Referring back to your petition and that of Bob Cox how many signatures were there, I seem to recollect about 5000. The World Wild Life fund who in addition to Natural England are proposing MPAs had a 300,000 petition submitted at their launch of their fourteen proposed MPAs in October. The petition was for Government to expedite the Marine Bill. That is why I use the word INEVITABLE. There are some of us yourself included who have tried to galvanise   support but there are many on this forum who would rather go fishing than give some of their time to voice OUR concerns. Well they better make the most of it.

[biscuitlad]

Don't agree about the gill net fisheries.  Sorry.  The Filey bay bass nets take around 400 bass a month.  For a mostly shore dwelling species, that hits leisure anglers.  If all the fishermen here totted up their bass counts for the year, would we equal a month for those nets?  That one guy who does the gill nets is making a very handsome living, and in the process ruining a fledgling bass fishery.

By all means ban inshore commercial fishing - but it's pointless stopping leisure anglers, you only have to look at the national shore competition to see what 2000 hapless individuals take out on day's fishing - it's a pittance.

Why can't they make an area like Hayburn Wyke a marine conservation area?  It's virtually impossible for shore anglers to access, and the shoreline is already owned by the National Trust.  Why choose Flamborough Head - it's one of the few areas along that stretch of coastline that offers good fishing and access.

The politicians never stand up against the commercial fisheries destroying fish stocks.  And now they want stop leisure anglers too - but we aren't the problem.  I'd vote for anything that gave me a chance of catching more fish, but this just isn't the way to do it. 
 

[Baramundi Bob]

Why can't they make an area like Hayburn Wyke a marine conservation area?  It's virtually impossible for shore anglers to access

Your knowledge of local fishing issues is second to none buscuit lad. 

[wec]

good old frankie @ age of 72 manages Hayburn Wyke quite well, although he does need a few more minites start then us forty year olds (even the missis makes the odd trip down) 
although i don't agree with the bass nets on filey sands i think 400 bass a month, every month is grossly exaggerated.  it is true that they get lots before xmas, but after xmas they dissappear (probably because the've caught them all, or due to migration)

[biscuitlad]

Virtually impossible carrying a stack of gear I meant.   

It's true they drop off and that's peak figure.  But the figures for those nets are more than you might think.  The NEFSC's report showed in that in Oct 2006 netsman Frank Powell get 1183 fish in the month, 60% of which were bass, which is fair haul.  Other months vary.  But anyhow, the Filey Bay gill nets are just one.  From NESFC own report on the fishery in 2006:

"A census of fishing effort in the area showed that there were five full time netsmen and up to thirty part timers taking part in the sea bass directed fishery between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point in 2004. There were also twelve fishermen taking a by catch of sea bass in the licensed salmon fishery between March and August (Pickett, 2005). It has been noted that the number of licence applications for the summer salmonid fishery has been increasing in order to take advantage of the sea bass by-catch. In addition to these net fisheries, sea bass are also taken in recreational fisheries in the area by both shore and boat anglers. There are also at least two commercial fishermen targeting sea bass in a gill net fishery in the Withernsea area of the Holderness coast.
The fishery which is subject to this assessment is the intertidal fixed net fishery on the Holderness coast, between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point. There are five full time fishermen involved in the fishery which takes place between November and March." 

I've nothing against them, but I can't understand why they want a no take zone around Flamborough Head to protect marine life there, but plan to let the gill netters continue as they want everywhere else.  The gill netters will benefit, the anglers who want to fish the Head will have to go elsewhere.

[Baramundi Bob]

Did you attend the meeting biscuit lad ?

[northbayotter]

Virtually impossible carrying a stack of gear I meant.  

It's true they drop off and that's peak figure.  But the figures for those nets are more than you might think.  The NEFSC's report showed in that in Oct 2006 netsman Frank Powell get 1183 fish in the month, 60% of which were bass, which is fair haul.  Other months vary.  But anyhow, the Filey Bay gill nets are just one.  From NESFC own report on the fishery in 2006:

"A census of fishing effort in the area showed that there were five full time netsmen and up to thirty part timers taking part in the sea bass directed fishery between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point in 2004. There were also twelve fishermen taking a by catch of sea bass in the licensed salmon fishery between March and August (Pickett, 2005). It has been noted that the number of licence applications for the summer salmonid fishery has been increasing in order to take advantage of the sea bass by-catch. In addition to these net fisheries, sea bass are also taken in recreational fisheries in the area by both shore and boat anglers. There are also at least two commercial fishermen targeting sea bass in a gill net fishery in the Withernsea area of the Holderness coast.
The fishery which is subject to this assessment is the intertidal fixed net fishery on the Holderness coast, between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point. There are five full time fishermen involved in the fishery which takes place between November and March." 

I've nothing against them, but I can't understand why they want a no take zone around Flamborough Head to protect marine life there, but plan to let the gill netters continue as they want everywhere else.  The gill netters will benefit, the anglers who want to fish the Head will have to go elsewhere.

interesting stuff right enough but did you know that the n.e.s.f.c currently has an application lodged with defra for the secretary of state to confirm a bylaw that will limit the activities of operators of the targetted sea-bass net fishery in two separate ways.

(1) the number of permits/operators will be limited to just five under a permit scheme

(2) the area where inter tidal netsmen will be permitted to target sea-bass will be geographically limited to holderness alone , and elsewhere bass netting will be banned in the district of the committee (stretching from the tyne to donna nook at the southern side of the humber mouth) i.e. if this comes to pass the filey bass will be safe as intertidal bass netting will no longer be permitted in filey bay-this was due to come into force this this year but from talking to chief fishery officer david Mc.candless last saturday he reported his ongoing dissapointment that it has been delayed but is hopefull that a decision may come soon

are you aware of the targetted pair trawling of bass that take place most winters at flamborough?
-it is a sad but true fact,   -and get this i have it on very good authority that one pair team took FORTY STONES of bass for a single tow!!  -and these are not small insignificant bass they are adult bass of a size that most anglers dream of.

my suspicion given the time of year is that these bass being targetted in this way are a spawning associated congregation ...................please  give some thought to that 
 ... not nice is it??

-and while considering that, -from the very same n.e.s.f.c report to which you refer it also stated that a number of year '0' bass were noted in filey bay (a then first for yorkshire ) and went on to speculate that also as recently spawned fish figured in some catches the evidence suggests that a locally centred spawning of bass may well be taking place

with specific relevence to the trawlers targetting these fish in this way
-the thing that frustrates/prevents these vessels being able to tow even closer inshore where they can do even more damage both to fish stocks and seabed

 -you guessed it is the static gear already in place!!

[biscuitlad]

Did you attend the meeting biscuit lad ?

No, I only found about all this when I got back from work in Germany.

[biscuitlad]

are you aware of the targetted pair trawling of bass that take place most winters at flamborough?

-it is a sad but true fact,   -and get this i have it on very good authority that one pair team took FORTY STONES of bass for a single tow!!  -and these are not small insignificant bass they are adult bass of a size that most anglers dream of.

my suspicion given the time of year is that these bass being targetted in this way are a spawning associated congregation ...................please  give some thought to that 
 ... not nice is it??

-and while considering that, -from the very same n.e.s.f.c report to which you refer it also stated that a number of year '0' bass were noted in filey bay (a then first for yorkshire ) and went on to speculate that also as recently spawned fish figured in some catches the evidence suggests that a locally centred spawning of bass may well be taking place

with specific relevence to the trawlers targetting these fish in this way
-the thing that frustrates/prevents these vessels being able to tow even closer inshore where they can do even more damage both to fish stocks and seabed

 -you guessed it is the static gear already in place!!

That's both interesting and depressing.  But I'm not sure that we should view the gill netters as our friendly protectors and saviours against even worse pillaging of the bass stocks by pair net trawlers!   

How about making the whole Yorkshire coast a mile out a leisure angling reserve, apply sensible bag limits and there'll be fish for everybody.  No more gill net fisheries or close-in trawling.  That thought doesn't exactly break my heart.  Still plenty of work for the lads who do the crabbing and shellfish, which is the majority especially out of Brid and Filey, and it leaves quite a few more fish for us.

Anyhow, it ain't gonna happen.  Instead, we'll get banned from Flamborough.  Year after that, they'll probably start making us pay licences for the privilege of catching nowt everywhere else.   

[Baramundi Bob]

Anyhow, it ain't gonna happen.  Instead, we'll get banned from Flamborough.  Year after that, they'll probably start making us pay licences for the privilege of catching nowt everywhere else.   

Starting to sound realistic now

[dbrown]

Ino you will of all heard this before, but why can they stop people fishing from places that have been here for years? Nobody should rightfully own these areas so why do they stop it w@nkers.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- ANGLING UK ----------------------------- => Uk Kayak, Shore & Boat Fishing Forum => Classified Ads ----------------------------- NORTH EAST FRESH WATER FISHING ----------------------------- => North East Fresh Water Fishing => Fresh Water Fishing Website Reviews And Links ----------------------------- SEA ANGLING - NORTH EAST ----------------------------- => North East Coast Sea Fishing => Sea Fishing WebSite Reviews And Links => Charter Boats & Tackle Shops. => Sea Angling Pictures ===> Whitby Angling Supplies - Heaviest Fish Competitions ===> Photography Competitions - Spotty Dog Tackle ===> MWWs Pics ===> CPS Pictures ===> Mackys Pictures ===> Lobbers Pictures ===> Glenns Pictures ===> Paul Kilpatricks Sea Otter 2 Pictures ===> Pictures By Ramrod ===> Smokeys Pictures ===> Jelly Worms Pics ===> New Daves Photos ===> Snaps From GJW