1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Question For North East Sea Fisheries Committee

Discussion in 'Sea Fishing Forum - Shore, Boat & Kayak Fishing' started by Baramundi Bob, Jan 31, 2010.

  1. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    I will be attending my second meeting of the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee Stakeholders Group This Coming Friday. If any of you have any serious questions you would like asked on your behalf, then please say below. I can not promise I will get chance to ask the questions but If I do, I will.
  2. neil bugdol

    neil bugdol Blenny

    I would like to know.
    If they have any intention to approach kayak anglers on the water to inspect their catch if they suspect the kayak angler to be fishing for quoted species, after all we are boats, we are fishing and come under parts of article 47
  3. wec

    wec Nunc est biben dum

    as long as you dont sell any of your cod and it meets the minimum size you can keep what you like king fisher ...............at the moment!
    my question glenn is ,what part are they playing in the netgain consultation process?
  4. deadlyfish

    deadlyfish Guest

    A couple of questions that may get a few bums wriggling in their seats -
    What is the ten year future for quotas/fleet size for the North sea with regard both British registered vessels and non British registered vessels ?
    What measures are they proposing to undertake to revive the current stock levels of native species, if they feel there is no problem with stock levels can they publish their findings that has brought them to a conclusion that no further restrictions are required?
  5. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    You can legally sell it too. The law about selling fish applies only to "Powered Vessels"
  6. bassman

    bassman Administrator

    Just a couple of question Glenn

    Is it true they intend imposing a bag limit on shore anglers

    Why are they allowing salmon and bass nets in a NTZ no take means no take for every one,
    and how far do they intend to extend the NTZ (north)

    cheers Alan
  7. harrythecod

    harrythecod Rockling

    Go these NTZ allso include bait collecting ,IE crab ,worms ,and shellfish, :suspious:
  8. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    I asked about this Harry at the last meeting. It would appear they know as much as us (I do believe them).
  9. Relm

    Relm Whitby Fishing Forum _ Simply The Best

    How do they intend to enforced/ finance no take zones, MCZs etc especially during the peek times (summer)?
  10. Doc

    Doc New Member

    Discussions from the outset with Natural England suggested that the site would be a complete no take zone (NTZ) from the baselines (Mean Spring HW) to the seaward boundary (sublittoral), this would include the intertidal area and original dialogue touched on either NE or the NESFC erecting signs to inform everyone that this was a no take zone and that nothing could be picked (crabs, winkles, mussels etc.). It should be noted that this proposal originated with Natural England (then English Nature), it was not suggested by the NESFC, or sea anglers, it was solely the resposibility of NE, the orginal idea was to make significant parts of Flamborough and Bempton an NTZ, what ultimately passes onto the statute books will be a result of the co-ordinated attempts by commercial and recreational fishermen to reduce the impact of the original proposal.

    Recently there have been a number of queries wrt this proposed zone and a large degree of criticism as to why anglers agreed to the zone (including the AT (Yorks region)), in my opinion, this is unwarranted, as the alternatives will have been significantly worse. As background to the overall process, Natural England had indicated to a number of people (at NESFC level, to local commercial fishermen and within angling circles), that they wished to implement a conservation zone at Flamborough Head, this zone would likely comprise some of the key habitats that are present within our (Yorkshire) region. This early indication was not so much a query, but more a statement of intent. Natural England did state that they did not wish to impact anyones livlihood if at all possible and subsequently a series of open meetings were widely publicised and eventually established, whereby a zone with certain boundaries was agreed upon, this included local anglers, local commercial fishermen, NESFC, a diver and Natural England. The zone ultimately agreed upon, was one which achieved some of NE's aims whilst minimising the impact to commercial fishermen and sea anglers alike, the alternative options that NE had in their portfolio were undoubtedly more painfull to both sectors. I personally thought at the time that we had escaped quite lightly, particularly as we were given assurances that this site, if designated, would be the only one, although they did come back and ask for an extension to the original boundaries, which was swiftly rejected.

    Since this time the proposed byelaw to designate the site has gone to DEFRA for clarification and at a local level a number of issues have been identified, once the more specific details had been released, particularly in respect of the southern boundary and the inability of the byelaw to prohibit salmon and sea trout netting. I note that there has been some not inconsiderable chagrin voiced regarding the proposed change of boundaries, particularly aimed at the sender of an e-mail which attempted to clarify the position in terms of possible conflicts with the NTZ and local sea anglers, and match angling in particular. This I understand was an attempt to ensure that anglers knew exactly where the boundary would be through a visible line of sight, as opposed to an imaginary view, which in its initial manifestation would certainly mean that anglers fishing along Bridlington North Beach up to the boundary at Sewerby Steps (the northern most boundary for a number of local sea angling clubs), would be inadvertently fishing into the NTZ. By taking a line from Sewerby Steps to the bouy (as the e-mail suggested), this would ensure anglers could not be criminalised for carrying out a legitimate activity.

    In respect of the continued netting for salmon and sea trout within the zone, this is because under the Salmon Act (1986), DEFRA and NE have no jurisdiction, this is the remit of the Environment Agency, therefore, DEFRA could sanction the byelaw to designate the area as a NTZ, but they couldn't (can't) over-ride the Salmon Act, without the EA's compliance. I'm not wholly sure of the mechanisms in place, but it may be that unless they compensate the fishermen who hold the licences and remove the licence from the area, there isn't a lot else they could do. I have been told however, that this is no longer an issue as the licence holder has agreed not to fish from this point, problem solved.

    How things proceed in the future is anyones guess, with Net Gain I suspect that considerable areas of Flamborough, Bempton, Filey and elsewhere will be on the hit list, how this is mitigated I don't know. However, much we may dislike the process and or the aims, just saying no will result in less angling areas through closure and regulation, the only way I see relative stability for all sectors is to sit at the table and put forward a joint, robust, co-ordinated response which clearly illustrates the socio-economic benefits of the activities in which we are engaged. Quoting Magna Carter and your right to fish wherever you want is not going to be a strong enough argument to deter the government's panel of scientific advisors to recommend, that an activity in which they've probably never participated, should become outlawed in an area, they probably understand even less.

    If ever there was a time for anglers and all other stakeholders to get involved and attend the meetings, it is now. Many say they will but ultimately never do. Like the old saying " Cometh the hour........ Cometh the man".
  11. biscuitlad

    biscuitlad Guest

    Good grief Doc, we've not heard from you in a while but that's a depressing assessment!

    But there are further options that I feel Natural England ignore. For example, they could allow the NTZ around Flamborough to be designated a sport fishing zone only, i.e. no leads or baits to be used (as they may feel these have the greatest potential for harm), and make it lure fishing only. They could also impose the "Irish restrictions" of 2 fish per angler, per session.

    The legal niceties regarding the salmon and sea trout gill nets make the whole notion of a NTZ somewhat laughable. The fact is, the gill netters are allowed to keep whatever bass and other fish that get ensnared in their nets as they like. And they do. It's got nothing to do with any Salmon Act. Any mesh that will take a salmon of 5lb or more, will do the same for bass or any other sized fish.

    The NTZ is going to be implemented. There's little we can do to stop it, except make the case that some forms of recreational sea fishing (such as lure fishing) should at the very least be allowed to continue, as its impact is negligible, and would certainly be less than that caused by any gill netting that might take place.

    An "NTZ" is a misnomer: if I gill net, I can take what I like. Why call it that if it can't be imposed legally? Why not call it a Restricted Take Zone, or something else that is more honest and has room for some flexibility with regard to recreational sea angling?

    Tight lines.
  12. Baramundi Bob

    Baramundi Bob Super Leeds United !!!

    Some of the salmoners at Whitby claim to make good money from Bass and love it when theres a surf running.
  13. Doc

    Doc New Member

    I would expect that were it not for bass many would not bother, there certainly isn't enough salmon around to make it worthwhile, and the best sea trout run gets underway as the season ends. Speak to most of the salmon guys down our way a few years ago and they would tell you that they would happily give up bothering with the trout from April to August (5 months) just to get access in September and October, although there has been a few fish in November of late. That was then, before the bass made any sort of appearance, nowadays its the bass that form the staple of their income, particularly south of head end.

Share This Page