Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-230)
MR RICHARD
FERRÉ, MR
MALCOLM GILBERT,
MR LEON
ROSKILLY, MR
BOB COX
AND MR
JOHN LE
BALLEUR
14 DECEMBER 2004
Q220 Diana Organ: That might be so in
the States. Let us talk a bit closer to home about what species
re-designation you would like to have in our waters. It is okay
if you can afford a trip over to the States to do your fishing
and good luck to you, but let us talk about the million who are
not doing that.
Mr Cox: In the second part of
your question you asked what the effect would be on commercial
fishing.
Q221 Diana Organ: I should like to know
first of all, your species.
Mr Cox: Malcolm, the number of
species which anglers target, the values of those compared with
the overall commercial figure.
Mr Gilbert: In England and Wales,
if you go to the Defra statistics, the total first-hand sale value
of all fish, commercial shellfish and pelagics, was £144
million in 2003. If we extract from that all the species which
are of no direct interest to anglers—we do not target scallops
and a lot of fin fish actually, people would be surprised, we
do not target long-fish, which is a nice fish to eat as well,
hake, megrim, sole, lemon sole—if you take all those out
of the equation you are left with a number of species which total
£49 million at first-hand sale value in England and Wales
which are jointly targeted by recreationals and commercials. I
shall not read them all out. Then you asked which species we might
be interested in seeing re-designated. We have talked about bass
already, conger eel, the catch to the English and Welsh fishing
fleet was £161,000 but that species is worth vastly more
than that recreationally. A significant number of charter boats
specialises in targeting that fish and it is 95% catch and release.
We have another species of fish called a flounder, which is a
flatfish not dissimilar to the plaice. The total catch in the
Defra statistics for 2002 is £40,000. We have ling, a fish
which is very popular for wreck fishing and that was £474,000.
We have fish such as rays, which were £3.2 million. Even
if we include cod, because obviously both sectors target cod,
brill, turbot, all these species which total £49 million,
according to the Defra funded Drew report support £538 million
of direct expenditure in England and Wales.
Q222 Diana Organ: Can I just be clear?
You are saying that you would be looking for a re-designation
of bass, conger eel, flounder, ling and the rays.
Mr Gilbert: And mullet and wrasse.
Mr Cox: Tope and smooth-hound.
Q223 Diana Organ: Never heard of them.
They do not sound that wonderful. On that basis I can understand
why you want to do it: you can see a real growth in your sector.
However, with bass, do you not think the commercial fisheries
are going to be jumping up and down about this? They are going
to be saying "Excuse me".
Mr Cox: There are other ways of
catching bass. You will have heard of monofilament gill nets,
the so-called wall of death. Defra do not know how many thousands
of kilometres of gill net are strung out around this country at
any one time; they have no idea. Some boats in Cornwall and the
West Country are currently shooting 30 kilometres of gill net
a day. People have no idea; top Defra scientists did not know
that until last week. Wherever you go around the coast of Britain,
whether you are a boat angler or a beach angler, you are given
a mark and there around you are monofilament gill nets. The total
value of the catch of bass taking those monofilament gill nets
is £3.1 million.
Q224 Diana Organ: But you want it re-designated
so that you just pick it up.
Mr Cox: No, no, no, no, no.
Mr Le Balleur: No, no, no.
Mr Cox: The recreational value
of the bass fishing at the moment is £100 million. What we
are saying is do not catch them this size, let them grow to that
size, then commercials, as they used to historically catch them
on rod and line or on long lines, instead of catching a bass at
36 centimetres, valued at £2.50, they can catch a bass at
£4.50, five times the value. You cannot get that interest
in the bank.
Q225 Diana Organ: I can understand that
and I can understand why you want to do it. Some of these fish
you have just mentioned are fish which at present are not seen
widely on the fishmonger's slab. One of the problems we surely
have is that when ministers go to look at the fish quotas and
we are all saying cod is in desperate straits and so is hake,
all the fish which we are exhorted by virtuous government to go
out and eat because it is good and healthy for us, one of the
problems we also have is that there are lots of other fish, and
you have just mentioned a few, which maybe we ought to be directing
the consumer to eat to give a bit of a break to the poor old cod.
We should say you could have on your plate a nice bit of flounder
or a nice bit of ray or a nice bit of ling or a nice bit of conger
eel. I have to say that I have eaten all of those.
Mr Cox: Do you know how long it
takes those fish to renew?
Q226 Diana Organ: Should we not be doing
that? What happens if we have re-designation of species? You guys
are picking it all up, your sector is growing, it is making a
bit of money here and there, but you are one million and the table
for the rest of Britain is going to be lacking these fish which
would then help us get out of the mess we have with the over-fishing
because we have been eating hake and chips or cod and chips for
generations. We should actually be telling the nation to make
a bit more commercial effort on the good old flounder.
Mr Ferré: We recognise
that the list we propose, because, contrary to popular belief,
we think commercial fishermen should be around and should be able
to earn a living as well, is likely to fall into two categories.
The one where both have access to it and one where they genuinely
do not have an interest and they really should be managed primarily
for recreational sea angling because any other approach certainly
does not make commercial sense. For example, Bob will tell you
that he was at a fish market in his area last week where tope
and smooth-hound, which you have never heard of, but which employ
the few charter boats left for a fair amount of their time because
there is nothing else to be caught, were being sold for 50 pence
per kilo to be ground up for fishmeal. That is a nonsensical approach
to fish management. We are open-eyed about this. What we are saying
is that for some species there must be scope for sharing. Both
have a role, people deserve to eat it, recreational sea anglers
should be able to catch them, but they should be managed for best
effect, so let them grow a bit bigger first of all, let us look
at some of the harmful catch processes we use and go for the least
harmful not the most harmful.
Chairman: The ethos of the sea angler
is: eat your own.
Q227 Diana Organ: No, they sell.
Mr Roskilly: A recreational sea
angler catches fish for recreation. A commercial fisherman catches
them for commerce. If somebody uses a rod and line to take a fish
and sells that fish, he is a commercial rod-and-line fisherman,
not a recreational angler. If he sells that fish illegally, he
is an illegal commercial fisherman. Most anglers are united in
condemning the practice of people who represent themselves as
anglers selling their catch. They are not recreational anglers,
they are commercial fishermen.
Chairman: Given what the Government tells
us about the health effects of fish, you should all be a remarkably
intelligent and physically fit congregation.
Q228 Mr Lazarowicz: May I turn the questioning
in a slightly different direction? The strategy unit report, from
which this all started, has suggested that there should be an
experimental programme of marine protected areas (MPAs). What
is the view in your sector about the effects such areas, if introduced,
would have on your activities? In particular, would you like to
have a role in the inshore fisheries in which you are primarily
interested?
Mr Roskilly: Firstly, marine protected
areas are often seen as a panacea for all the failed methods.
They are not. They do produce some benefits, but they will not
solve the problem. Unfortunately it diverts attention from other
measures which is one of the problems we might have with them.
Where they are established then the objectives for establishing
that area must be clearly set down. Whether that be for nature
conservation, for development of fish stocks, for providing a
recreational source, we must be very clear each time we are establishing
the area exactly what that objective is. Once we have established
the objective, we then have to look at the restrictions which
are necessary to bring that objective about. We should not apply
any restrictions which are not aimed at that objective or needed
to bring that objective about for any stakeholder. Having said
that, some areas are currently under consideration. They are described
as recreational only fisheries, but they could also be described
as marine protected areas because it is moving from a very destructive
form of fishery into a very low impact fishery where the fish
stocks will be able to multiply and at the same time a very significant
socio-economic value can be taken from that area. Yes, marine
protected areas mean lots of different things to lots of different
people.
Q229 Mr Lazarowicz: What are the kinds
of things that it means which are acceptable to you?
Mr Roskilly: If an area is needed
to be left alone and there are good scientific reasons that nobody
goes into that area, drops anchor there and disturbs whatever
is on the seabed or takes anything from that, yes, if there is
a need for anglers to be excluded from that area then we would
welcome that because it would produce better fish, a better environment
for fishing for the future.
Mr Ferré: They can present
an opportunity. What we are trying to say is that you cannot use
them as a panacea, they are a building block. Used correctly and
connected, because most fish move around so protecting one area
may protect the shellfish which live in it and may protect a few
other things but it will be of limited protection to fish. For
example, if you do a spawning area and say these fish spawn here
at this time of year therefore you cannot do certain things there,
that would be of value. We are half enthusiastic and half cautious
and it is not just us. If by doing that we can increase the likelihood
of fish spawning, fish growth, prevent damage to the seabed, prevent
over-fishing, we should be happy to accept restrictions on what
we can do, if we were allowed to fish in marine protected areas,
but unless there was a really good reason, we would be unhappy
if we were totally banned from them. However, stop us from taking
the fish, make us put them back in a sensible manner, stop us
doing things which would be harmful for the environment, absolutely
fine with that. We recognise they have a role to play which may
be beneficial, but where we have looked at case histories in other
places, they sometimes generate problems as well as fix them,
so you just have to be honest about what outcome you are looking
for.
Mr Roskilly: We do have a system
of protected areas around the country in bass nursery areas where
anglers and commercial fishermen are not allowed to take any bass
from those areas at certain times of the year for some of them,
if they are fishing from a boat, or to use sand eels as bait.
They are very popular with anglers because they can see a benefit
in generating the best stocks locally which can be caught all
over the area. They would often be policed by anglers; if they
see somebody actually fishing in that area, whether anglers or
commercial fishermen netting illegally in those areas, they will
be quick to report them.
Mr Gilbert: We need to be very
clear what marine protected areas are. There has been a lot of
debate about them, but people are perceiving them as different
things. One example of a particularly good MPA would be the mackerel
box, which allows the least destructive hand-line fishing to continue,
but stops some of the very large pelagic boats coming in and taking
vast quantities. That is an absolutely first class example which
anglers would applaud and there are lots of other examples where
I think the most destructive methods can be prohibited, but where
there are sustainable methods, they should be allowed.
Q230 Chairman: One final question on
the sustainable fisheries programme. Are you involved in this?
What influence do you have there? Are your inputs listened to
or do you feel neglected?
Mr Ferré: We are certainly
being listened to now. I am a member of the overarching stakeholder
group, which is currently consulting on the recommendations with
a view to producing a final report for ministers, as I understand
it March/April time. Two of us here are on sub-groups; of the
four sub-groups, we are on the three of those which we felt it
appropriate to be on. We are the sole recreational sea angling
voice on it. The stakeholder group has 28 non-government people
on it and just as many government people on it and I am the only
recreational sea angler, so we are not exactly over-weight, but
we are represented. At the moment there is evidence that what
we are saying is being listened to and we await the outcome with
interest.
Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
That has been a particularly interesting session and it has been
educational for me. We are very grateful to you for coming to
give us this evidence this afternoon. Thank you very much indeed.
|
