Cod has been added to the list of species, along with salmon and tuna, that EU nations have to declare to the EU the amount of fish taken in 'recreational fisheries (which in some countries is more netting and trawling than rod and lining).
Now, I can see where that might lead in light of the EU's cod recovery programme.
(Tuna was recently made subject to a one fish per angling boat bag limit).
Rather than DEFRA getting around to putting up angling bag limit proposals for cod, I expect that it will be an EU regulation that comes out of the blue.
(Though SFCs could introduce a bag limit quite quickly within their district as well. Incidentally, the current SFC bag limit proposals for bass have nothing to do with conservation, it's about being able to nick the boats that come in with 30 - 50 bass a trip, obviously for sale but the SFCs can't get the evidence, bag limits proposed have been around 5-6 fish per angler, which many are happy with who fail to understand the basic principle that once accepted, it might be 2 fish or 1 fish or maybe zero fish in future years).
We already have this in Belgium
"By ministerial decision of 26 February, 2003, it is from 1 March forbidden fishermen in a boat without a fishing licence to keep on board more than 20 kg of cod and bass with a maximum of 15 kg cod per person (which makes it perfectly legal for lets say eight anglers to catch and land 8 x 15 kg of cod as I understand it). The fish must remain whole but it can be eviscerated "
Now if bag limits for cod do appear on the radar, we have three alternatives.
1. Do nothing and live with them as best we can
2. Fight the proposals like hell
3. Come up with a formulae that we can live with
The problem comes in making a choice between 2 & 3.
Do we have a cat in hell's chance of winning if we go for total opposition and refuse to cut a deal, knowing that if we lose we get what we are given with no chance to negotiate.
Or if we do feel that there is no way that we can defeat proposals for a bag limit on anglers, Do we instead argue as hard as we can for something that we can live with?
The problem being that anyone going down that route is likely to be accused of selling anglers down the river.
Perhaps safer to stay out of it and safely watch the ship go down from the shore, rather trying to board and save it and be blamed for it's sinking.
However, if one is going to fight for the best deal possible, there are some arguments to be used.
The commercials, backed up by the rules of the CFP, argue that conservation needs have to be balanced against the needs of fishermen.
So charter boats especially could work out how big a bag limit they need to maintain their business and the viability of the charter fleet and fight for that as a reasonable compromise, rather than trying to argue against any bag limit at all.
An argument that they could use is that every kg of cod landed by an angling charter boat puts far much more into the economy than a kg of trawled fish, and therefore to attain the most economic and social value from the stock, the needs of the angling charter fleet should be given preference over the needs of the commercial boats, if there is a need to do that.
Shore angling and match fishing could also argue on similar lines, though I fear that measure and return would have a part to play, alongsid bag limits.
So, accepting that we could be looking at bag limits on cod, how should that be played?
- Don't bother fighting it?
- Fight it even though it will probably be wasted effort.
- Look at what deals are possible that might not be all that we want but is better than nothing, and if so, what can we live with?
- Something that I haven't thought of, but hopefully you will.
Oh! and should we really be talking about this, giving the eurocrats ideas that we might even contemplate a deal :eek: !!
