Kayak, Shore & Boat Fishing Forums - Whitby Sea Anglers

Minutes from latest meeting

Attendance List


Members
   Organisation
Doug Beveridge   National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
John LeBalleur   Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society  (BASS)
Leon Roskilly   Sea Anglers Conservation Network (SACN)
Mat Mander   Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee
Richard Ferre   National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
Rob Blyth-Skyrme   Natural England (NE)
Tim Dapling   Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee
   
Agency
   
Alistair McDonnell   Marine Fisheries Agency
Mike Smith   Cefas
Steve Colclough   Environment Agency
   
Defra
   
Anthony Hynes   Coastal Waters Policy
Erin Priddle   Coastal Waters Policy
Nicola Clarke   Coastal Waters Policy
   
Apologies
   
Chris Venmore   Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)/Devon SFC
Graham Catt   Department of Culture Media & Sports (DCMS)
Nigel Proctor   National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

 

Para Ref   Action   Owner
2.4   Cefas to confirm status of EC commissioned study on Sport Fisheries in the EU
   Cefas
2.4   Defra to circulate a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures
   Defra
2.7   Defra to circulate fish pain document to members
   Defra
2.7   CEFAS to clarify whether note on limitations of using MLS as a management tool was circulated
   Cefas
2.7   Defra to contact DCMS on how a more joined up approach may be achieved
   Defra
3.3   Subgroup to consider the inclusion of links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’ means and circulate to Defra
   Subgroup
3.4   Defra to consider the inclusion of specific objectives based on responses and discussions
   Defra
3.5   Defra to refer to socio-economic considerations, ‘RSA only’ species and voluntary measures when revising the draft Strategy
   Defra
3.6   Defra to emphasise the importance in collecting data on early life histories of commercial species and reflect the need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action when revising the draft Strategy
   Defra
3.8   Defra to reword RSA Management section to more accurately reflect the aspirations of anglers
   Defra
3.8   Defra to include in the Strategy a short list of benefits of licensing as identified in the planned Marine Bill   Defra
4.1   Defra to incorporate changes and circulate draft 4 of the RSA Strategy by 2 March
   Defra
4.1   Members to provide comments by 9 March 2007
   Subgroup
 
Minutes

1.0   Introductions

1.1   The Chair welcomed members to the fourth Inshore Fisheries Working Group (IFWG) – Recreational Sea Angling Strategy Subgroup meeting and thanked members for attending.

1.2   Apologies were received from Chris Venmore, Peter Hunt of SAGB and Graham Gatt of DCMS.

1.3   The Chair reviewed the aim of the meeting, which was to agree revisions to the final draft and next steps with a view to presenting the Strategy to the IFWG in March.

2.0   Approval of minutes and overview of developments and actions since the last meeting.

2.1   Following the previous RSA subgroup meeting in December, Defra produced a revised draft (draft 3) of the RSA Strategy and invited comments from members to be submitted by 1 February. The Chair thanked members for their contributions and said that their comments have been reviewed and will be taken on board (along with discussions of this meeting). The revised version (draft 4) will be circulated to members for a final opportunity to comment before it is presented to the IFWG in March.

2.2   The Chair highlighted other developments including Defra’s Fisheries Contract, which will be discussed with a wide group of stakeholders through workshops around the coast. The Chair invited members to comment on the Contract, noting that they may be interested in reviewing aspects relating to angling.

2.3   Another development since the previous RSA subgroup meeting was the angling stakeholder meeting, which took place on 13 December. The Chair reviewed highlights and said minutes would be available to those wishing to see them.

2.4   The EA wished to make members aware of the EU Maritime Paper, which provides some useful background on available funding for green tourism, such as angling. The Chair also alerted members to a study commissioned by the EC on Sport Fisheries in the EU. CEFAS agreed to confirm the status of this report. The Chair also highlighted a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures which included references to angling. Defra agreed to circulate  this paper to members.

2.5   The outcome of the NFSA survey was queried (ref: Minutes, 12 December, page 4, para 2.6, bullet 4). The NFSA invited members to check the website to view the results which would be published at the end of February on http://www.nfsa.org.uk.
2.6   For clarification, the NFFO noted their proposal to reintroduce MLSs did not extend to all species under the Technical Conservation Regulations. (ref: para 2.4 of the minutes).

2.7   The Chair reviewed the actions of the previous meeting. It was noted that:
   Defra were seeking advice from colleagues in Animal Health and Welfare on the current position, and would circulate the Cefas document on fish pain once received.
   Cefas to clarify whether document on limitations of using MLS as a management tool has been circulated.
   The DCMS success criteria for project funding was reflected in the Strategy, however, Defra noted that a more joined up approach was required and agreed to contact them on how this might be achieved.

Action: Cefas to confirm status of EC commissioned study on Sport Fisheries in the EU
Action: Defra to circulate a Commission non-paper on technical conservation measures
Action: Defra to circulate fish pain document to members
Action: CEFAS to clarify whether note on limitations of using MLS as a management tool was circulated
Action: Defra to contact DCMS on how a more joined up approach may be achieved

3.0   Open discussion on revised draft

3.1   The Chair suggested that since detailed comments were received on draft 3 of the Strategy, it would be helpful if the group focused on key issues they wished to discuss. As previously noted, members would be given another opportunity to comment on the draft and minor amendments would then be considered.

3.2   It was noted that the Strategy needed to appeal to the wider audience who had not been involved in discussions to date.  After discussion on the best format for the Strategy, it was agreed to draw out key messages in each section with the background text supporting reasoning and approach. 

3.3   There was further discussion on the use of ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’. This was discussed at length in the previous meeting (ref: Minutes, 12 December, page 3, para 2.5). It was resolved to consider the inclusion of several links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based’ means, with subgroup members to suggest appropriate links.

3.4   It was felt by several members that the focus on ‘more and bigger fish’ (or wording of equivalent meaning) should be a key objective. The EA added that the objectives should also relate to the environment . Defra agreed to consider and reflect these points in the drafting.

3.5   When discussing Species, Stock Impact and Habitat Management, the NFSA noted that socio-economic considerations should be fully considered to ensure that decisions on fisheries management are effectively evaluated. The concept of ‘RSA only’ species should also be better reflected in the draft, and it was further noted that voluntary measures should also be included as a possible tool for species management.

3.6   Early life-histories of commercial species were noted as a large gap in fisheries science. It was thought that the Strategy could therefore place greater emphasis on the importance in bridging this gap. Members agreed a key point to flag was that the Strategy’s remit related to inshore fisheries, but that to deliver the objectives effectively there was a need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action. Defra would need to play a role in this.

3.7   The inclusion of the ‘golden mile’ was debated. It was appreciated that while this was an aspiration for anglers, there is no evidence to support the case either way at present. Specified areas were a more realistic approach, based on sound evidence and on a case-by-case basis. A key action for the Strategy would be to start gathering this evidence. Natural England added that there may be some areas of the sea where all activities will need to be stopped in order to protect particular habitats, communities or species from damage.

3.8   The Chair acknowledged the sensitivity surrounding RSA management, especially in relation to ‘bag limits’. Angling representatives outlined the strong opposition within the angling sector to the concept of bag limits, particularly as an aid to enforcement rather than as a conservation tool to be applied alongside equivalent controls on the commercial sector. There was debate on the most appropriate controls to introduce to the sector and it was noted that benefits would need to be realised before controls would be acceptable. Defra agreed to reword this section and highlight key points, but it was generally considered that ‘bag limits’ should remain within the document, pointing out the use of this tool as a conservation measure with added benefits that would enable better enforcement of unlicensed fishing activities. It was considered that this debate would be more appropriate for the implementation stage of the Strategy.

Action: Subgroup to consider the inclusion of links or definitions on what ‘Ecosystem Based Approach’ means and circulate to Defra
Action: Defra to consider the inclusion of specific objectives based on responses and discussions.
Action: Defra to refer to socio-economic considerations, ‘RSA only’ species and voluntary measures when revising the draft Strategy
Action: Defra to emphasise the importance in collecting data on early life histories of commercial species and reflect the need to join up with offshore fisheries and EC action when revising the draft Strategy
Action: Defra to reword RSA Management section to more accurately reflect the aspirations of anglers

4.0   Summary and next steps

4.1   The Chair thanked all present for a productive meeting. The points raised had been noted and would be reflected in a revised draft (draft 4), along with the comments received on 1 February. The tight timetable was highlighted - Draft 4 would then be circulated to the group by Friday 2 March and comments on this draft should be received by Friday 9 March.

4.2   After the revised draft had been circulated and commented received, Defra would produce a draft paper, covering the Strategy, with recommendations to present to the IFWG meeting on 23 March. Members agreed a recommendation to consult more widely would be important and an opportunity for Members to comment on these recommendations would be provided.

4.3   Finally, the future of the group was discussed. It was agreed to continue to meet with the purpose of reviewing comments and steering implementation of the Strategy, but on a when needed or bi-annual basis. This would be put to the IFWG for their endorsement.

Action: Defra to incorporate changes and circulate draft 4 of the RSA Strategy by 2 March
Action: Members to provide comments by 9 March 2007



Coastal Waters Policy
February 2007

4.   SPECIES, STOCK IMPACT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT

•   Providing more and bigger fish using a variety of tools and mechanisms

•   Species management plans for a stakeholder compiled list of key species of importance to anglers – including consideration of recreational only species

•   Measures that promote fish stock levels and maturity (such as minimum and maximum landing sizes, or nursery areas or protection of spawning aggregrations) to be considered

•   On the basis of solid evidence, consider specific areas for special consideration with a view to limiting commercial activity or reserving them for angling use only. The potential benefits of MPAs, nursery areas and fixed engine byelaws to be investigated.
 

4.1   Fish stocks are a shared resource, and should be managed in a way that takes into account the needs of all with an interest.  Improved management of fish stocks and habitat can provide benefits to all sectors. Some species are valued equally by both the commercial and recreational sector, whilst others are of value to only one sector.  Relative values of species can also vary by geographical area. The RSA sector also values the ‘expectation of catching a specimen fish’ as part of the whole “angling experience”, as well as the actual reward in capturing a particular species or specimen.  This value can be enhanced by development in three key areas, outlined below.

Species Management Plans
4.2   There are a number of species that are particularly prized by anglers because of their biological or geographical ‘rarity’,  ‘catchability/sporting prowess’ and potentially large size, and management plans would set specific measures that would enhance the stock to maximise the angling opportunities. Some work has already been carried out to develop management measures or plans for some species, such as elasmobranchs, bass and mullet. Work done to date on individual species should help to inform future proposals and lessons learned from establishing and implementing any measures drawn upon. Commercial bycatch could be an important issue for any species specific measures, and should be considered in management plans.

4.3   Plans should set clear objectives for each species and consider the full range of management tools available to achieve those objectives. Choice of tools will be dependent on species, objectives and the practicability of implementation and are likely to differ in each management plan and, for some species, may even differ in terms of coastal or regional location. Legislation is not always appropriate, and in some circumstances, voluntary agreements or education may also prove an effective management tool.

4.4   Management plans should be informed as much as possible by current and ongoing scientific advice. Where there is a lack of data, all interested stakeholders should share the responsibility and cost (in both time and financial terms) in providing the evidence required to make informed decisions. There would also be value in placing more resources into gathering information about the early life-histories of species of high shared value, (such as cod) which would provide benefits for all stakeholders in the provision of more and bigger fish as well as improvement and protection of habitats. Organisations such as the EA and Defra should work together to share resources, especially where there are fresh water/marine links. 

4.5   On the basis of a list of key species identified on a regional and national basis and agreed by stakeholders, plans would be drawn up beginning with those species that are of more value to the recreational sector than commercial sector. This would enable different management tools to be tested, providing an opportunity to evaluate, demonstrate and promote the wider benefits of taking action before any consideration of other more commercially valuable species. Management Plans should consider the value in reserving some species for recreational use only. Plans should clearly state the most appropriate level to take action (i.e. whether local/national).   For example, prohibiting the use of flounders for pot bait in areas  where flounder levels have declined rapidly.

Management measures that promote fish maturity
4.6   When considering with stakeholders which species are put forward for Species Management Plans, other species that could benefit from measures to promote maturity should also be evaluated. . The principles of sustainable fisheries management, and the need to ensure diverse fish populations would drive the introduction of any such measures.

4.7   There are a range of management tools that would promote fish maturity. The concept of Minimum Landing Size (MLS) that is above the age of maturity for each species is broadly promoted, but is not may not be the most effective or appropriate tool in all cases. Measures such as protecting nursery or broodstockbrood stock aggregating areas, for example, could provide benefits through increasing recruitment or protecting large fish when they are most vulnerable to exploitation. A Maximum Landing Size (MaxLS) is also being considered for some species, such as skates and rays, at all levels of management (i.e. at a local, national and EU level). 

4.8   All stakeholders should be involved in the discussion to ensure there is a clear understanding of the practicalities and consequences involved in delivering any measures, and consensus should be reached where possible. The NFFO has previously proposed the re-introduction of MLSs in the UK for some species that were previously included under the EU Technical Conservation regulations. . The RSA sector will need to be engaged in the debate on MaxLSs as proposals develop, and as more evidence is gathered this should be considered as a tool in relation to species management plans.

4.9   With regard to ensuring that discards are kept to a minimum and noting the complexities of impacts in mixed fisheries, the ultimate choice of management tool would be dependent on fish species and informed by scientific advice. The introduction of any relevant management tools, such as an MLS, should be widely publicised (through signage and fisheries publications) and effectively enforced.

Protection of habitats and introduction of angling-only areas
4.10   Within the RSA sector there is strong support for a ‘Golden Mile’. This is defined as an area within 1nm of the shoreline that is of significant importance to anglers – it is not a ‘blanket ban’ . Although the sector acknowledges the impact such a measure would have on the commercial sector, there is considerable strength of feeling on this issue from a large number of anglers, who perceive that inshore netting reduces the likelihood of catching a fish, so diminishing the ‘angling experience’ within an area where a significant amount of sea angling takes place.

4.11   . It is acknowledged that, to some extent, there is a misconception about the extent and impact of netting inshore. Much of this misconception could be remedied through improved marking of buoys, education about fishing practices and clear signage via a national code..
 
4.12   Blanket measures such as a complete ban on netting and trawling or other forms of fishing within one mile of the shore could only be introduced after the costs and benefits have been fully evaluated and are likely to be extremely contentious. Such areas can also be difficult to define, legislate for and enforce effectively. The inshore zone is important to a number of small scale commercial fishing operators and displacement may also create health and safety problems, whilst the issue of compensation may also arise if management measures are taken on any basis other than for conservation reasons.    The first step to moving this forward would be to collate the necessary evidence, firstly to demonstrate whether there is an issue from interactions within 1nm and secondly to provide the data to enable any measures to be approached on a scientific, rather than ad-hoc basis. Such evidence would also facilitate dialogue between sectors.

4.13   Rather than Recognising Defra’s concerns that the concept of the “Golden Mile” is difficult to deliver a ‘Golden Mile’ a more practicable approach in the near future would be to identify specific areas (not just within 1nm) for special consideration, and limit commercial activity or reserve them for angling use only. Other areas could be managed more sensitively for multifunctional use. This might include peninsulas, wrecks or beach marks, for example. Other areas could be managed more effectively to improve the habitat and ecosystem, such as protecting the sea bed and increasing species richness and abundance. Such measures would be developed in consultation with local stakeholders including angling representatives.

4.14   There is a range of tools already in existence that can be used to designate further specific areas, and the Marine Bill should include provisions to broaden management measures. There is a communications gap in terms of awareness of the associated benefits of areas already existing where commercial activity is limited, and the relevant fisheries managers should work to ensure such benefits are identified and widely publicised.

4.15   Currently the main measures inshore which have the potential to provide benefits for anglers are fixed engine byelaws and bass nursery areas. As a starting point, there should therefore be a review of the extent and effectiveness of these measures, with a view to improving or widening their application. Management bodies, such as Defra, SFCs and the EA should work together closely to identify where synergies might exist.

4.16   The RSA sector should be involved in plans to introduce Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to ensure that their interests are fully represented in the design and designation of these areas. Depending on the management objectives for each MPA, there is scope for some areas to effectively become ‘angling only’. Where ‘No Take Zones’ are considered, anglers could be considered for inclusion as low-impact users in the surrounding buffer zones. Again, education and promotion of the benefits should underpin such measures.

4.17   Anglers should also work with local and national fisheries managers and scientists to identify the current ‘angling hot-spots’ and areas where there is minimal limited commercial fishing, but excellent angling potential. Such areas could be used for pilot studies, restricting use for sea-anglers only. Monitored closely, evidence built from such areas would then provide the basis for the further action elsewhere.

4.18    Defra will ensure a balanced application of funds available for development of marine based sectors, including RSA, which has significant development potential.


5.    RSA MANAGEMENT

•   A sea angling licence will be considered. Costs and benefits will be clear and transparent, and additional revenue ring fenced and returned to the angling sector to provide benefits.

•   As part of a balanced package of conservation measures to improve stock management, effort control (such as increased MLS, voluntary codes of conduct, bag limits, or carcass tags or voluntary log books) should be considered on a species by species basis. Objectives for such measures must be clearly defined.


5.1   There is relatively little management of sea angling activity in comparison with the commercial sector, with SFCs and the EA (who have powers to regulate shore activity) being the main bodies taking action. This may be a contributing factor to the broad appeal of the sport. However, with relatively high angling participation levels, and a possibility that this could increase in future, anglers have the potential to have an impact on some stocks. Everyone who catches fish has a responsibility to respond to changing stock levels to prevent the risk of over-exploitation.
5.2   Nevertheless, the potential benefits that might result from taking a more active approach to management can be identified, although it is noted that these will need to be communicated effectively to generate interest and participation from anglers. Such measures should be part of an overall package that aims to benefit anglers. The success and potential benefits of any measures will be dependent on anglers being actively involved in the development process. Responsibility would fall both to anglers, who should be willing to contribute constructively to the debate, and management bodies, who should ensure there is a clear, participative and extensive consultation process. Enforcement bodies should be actively involved in the development of proposals to ensure that any management measures can be enforced effectively .

5.3   All stakeholders in the Marine Environment have a responsibility to share the cost of science and fisheries management. A combined mechanism that would raise money for the benefit of sea anglers, provide an effective communication tool, gather information to better understand anglers’ needs and enable effective monitoring and enforcement would underpin other elements of the RSA Strategy. A sea angling licence (operating in a similar way to the freshwater angling licence) could meet these needs. The costs and benefits should must be transparent, justifiable and clearly understood. Additional revenue would need to be returned to the angling sector through a range of projects and programmes that would enhance the angling experience.   It is understood that the sea angling community is against the principle of licensing until clear improvements in the sea angling experience are  achieved.

5.4   Other management tools to manage the potential impact anglers have on stocks should be considered as part of an overall package of measures designed to manage and improve stocks  These tools should be flexible, enable action to be taken quickly if necessary to protect vulnerable stocks as well as look to the longer term, and be driven by clear scientific evidence. The conservation benefits of taking any action would need to be balanced and proportionate to the potential impact anglers have on stocks. Possible management tools include voluntary codes of conduct, increased MLS, voluntary log books and ‘bag limits’ (where, on a case-by-case basis, the total number of fish of the identified species allowed to be taken from the fishery over a specified time period would be limited) and carcass tagging (where limited numbers of tags are issued to identify saleable fish). 

5.5   The objectives should clearly state whether measures are being taken for conservation or enforcement purposes, or both. Action should be taken at the most appropriate level for any species, but should be primarily driven by Sea Fisheries Committees and the EA so that measures can be designed to take account of particular local circumstances.

5.6   Defra should take the opportunity of the Marine Bill to provide the necessary powers to introduce any management measures. The consultation processes involved in the Bill would enable anglers to express their views on these proposals. Translating any powers into practical legislation will take some years and involve further consultation on specific details. This period of time would enable other measures in the Strategy to be progressed and demonstrate improvements in the angling experience.

5.7   SFCs already have powers that would enable the introduction of some local management measures, such as bag limits and fixed engine by-laws.. Where measures are justified, pilot schemes could be considered by SFCs, working with local anglers and scientists to introduce, test and monitor the impact of the measures. SFCs should work together to ensure measures cover a full range of situations and locations. This would build evidence to inform decisions about using such measures on a wider and national basis. 


6. VOLUNTARY MEASURES: CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE

•   Develop a national Code of Conduct that promotes best practice for Recreational Sea Anglers

6.1   The RSA sector recognises that it has a responsibility for promoting and developing the sector. In particular, the sector should build upon the work done to date to establish codes of conduct and encourage best practice. The underpinning elements should be environmental protection,  safety and personal responsibility. The sector should work with environmental bodies, local authorities and other relevant organisations to identify where action is needed to improve the way in which anglers carry out their fishing activities.

6.2   Elements that could be considered include:
•   Marine finfish handling and return from both boat and shore
•   Sustainable angling practices (‘catch and release’ through to ‘catching sufficient for the table’)
•   Bait collection
•   Appropriate hook selection for size and species of targeted fish
•   Appropriate terminal tackle selection to minimise tackle losses
•   Disposal of waste and marine litter
•   Safety for the public and fishers from the shore and boats
•   Liability insurance
•   Knowledge of finfish regulations

6.3   Existing case studies (such as the use of litter bins and discarded tackle clean-up operations) should be researched to identify the actions needed to deliver the benefits, and good practice examples replicated. The self-regulation mechanism should be actively publicised and promoted throughout the angling community and beyond, to improve general perceptions and knowledge amongst other sectors and the public. The RSA sector should work with SFCs, RDAs and Local Authorities in promoting  codes of conduct.   

NFSA back track on the licence :

See:

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,353.0.html

 ;D ;D

East Anglian Anglers get meeting with local sea fisheries committee. Bag limits and Rsa Strategy takes up half of the meeting.