Thursday 17th April 2008

 

It was the first time that any one had made an address to the members of the SSFC at one of there general meetings and covered two subjects, the details of which we hope the committee will consider.

Here is what Bob had to say :-

 

Address to Southern Sea Fisheries Committee

By Bob Shotter

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: May I introduce my self  I am Robert Shotter Owner and administrator of the web site www.rodbenders.net a magazine styled web site that reports on all aspects of Recreational Sea Angling from charter boats. I am also a keen sea angler; a sport that I have PARTICIPATED IN regularly since the late 1960s fishing mainly in the SSFC district around the IOW and in the Solent.

I would like to address the committee today on two points.

My first subject is about the level of representation that the Recreational Sea Anglers have here given that they are not just stakeholders but major stake holders. The second would be regarding a matter rising from your last quarterly meeting, that of the Twelve metre byelaw.

 

Point One

 

Recreational Sea Anglers are a growing fraternity with currently over a million participants who contribute over £538 million to the UK economy.

This economical input is an important factor as it is not subject to excessive administrational costs and it is not supported by any Grant Aid schemes or EU funding of any kind.

 

This can be compared to the commercial sector who last year had a First Hand Sale Value for all species (bass, bream, cod, conger, dabs, dogfish, flounder, gurnard, haddock, ling, mullet, plaice, pollack, shark, skate, rays, and whiting) landed by UK boats into English & Welsh ports which amounted to just £24 million.  With the cost of transportation and processing added, the figure will round up to a maximum £100 million of economical value.

 

When the amount of administrative costs and the costs of supporting grant aid and EU funding is considered and included, we can see an enormous imbalance between the two sectors in favour of the commercial fishing sector,

This committee has only one RSA voice against five from the commercial sector (a voice that I believe was interrupted to the point of being discarded at your last general meeting.) as a result this committee is assisting this imbalance by its lack of proportional representation of the RSA and Commercial fishing sectors,

 

Furthermore Recreational Sea Anglers are by nature conservational in the pursuit of their sport, landing just 3% of the National Catch and returning an increasing amount of what they do catch.

 

Currently about 90% of the catch that is now returned alive which will enable them to fight and breed another day.

 

Research undertaken by some of the UK’s universities shows that the tagging program goes a long way to our understanding of the marine environment, thus the practice of catch and release does work.

 

Two years ago I fished for common skate in the Scottish waters near to the town of Oban. Several of the fish landed during that week had been caught and tagged previously. Glasgow University confirmed that one particular specimen had been landed on numerous occasions during the last twelve years having recorded its growth from 60lb to its current 175lbs.

 

If that Skate had been caught by a commercial fisherman it would have been consigned to the fishmongers slab and all for just a few pounds of edible product.

 

More locally I have been one of over two hundred anglers who have assisted in a tagging programme of Tope and Smooth Hounds in the waters to the East of the IOW. This has been ongoing for the past four years and is research into the migration patterns and reproduction of a species that give birth to their young rather than spawning that is common among the majority of fish.

 

 

On the other hand the commercial sector currently discard about 70% of their catch the vast majority of which is returned dead and consists mainly of juvenile fish, over quota species and economically unimportant by-catch.

So for every 30 tons of fish that are landed ashore, 70 tons are dumped dead back into the sea.

 

Recreational Sea Angling is continuing to grow in popularity and is the most environmentally friendly and sustainable method of fishing in your district. It is therefore essential you all recognise this fact and make provisions for its continuing growth. You must also realise that the commercial sector will do all that they can to prevent the RSA sector from receiving recognition. The UK Government has finally woken up to the importance of the Recreational Sea Angling Industry and the commercial fishing sector is not happy about it. Perhaps they are afraid that the game is up and that the rape of the seas around our coast where stocks are near to collapse is about to be exposed by the recreational sea angling lobby!

 

The Southern Sea Fishery Committee was, I understand; set up to protect the fishery, to apply bylaws necessary to that end and for its officers to enforce those bylaws to the benefit of all stakeholders. At present that would not seem to be the case as already mentioned the commercial sector has a far bigger say at this table with the appointed representation made by DEFRA on your behalf.

 

This is merely a suggestion and in part, a question.

RSA is by definition a SPORT so why is it that DEFRA which is a food agency, the only body that you use to recruit your advisors? There is in this government a department for Culture Media and SPORTS could you not ask them to supply the appropriate representatives to match the size of the RSA stake holding.

 

The wind of change is blowing and I recommend that this committee not only take notice but grasp the opportunity of embracing the RSA to your lobby. As together we might yet save this national treasure as has happened with great success in many other parts of the world.

 

My Second point is about a matter that was voted on at your last quarterly meeting in particular I refer to the Twelve metre by law which has caused a considerable amount of debate.

My brother, former County Councillor Alan Shotter was the Chairman of this committee at the time that this by law was introduced. He tells me that the purpose of the byelaw was to stop large commercial fishing vessels from working within the six mile limit and that it had nothing to do with RSA charter vessels, primarily because there were none around at that time.

All that was being asked for here is an amendment to the by law that which incidentally has been adopted by other local sea fishery district committees thus allowing larger than Twelve metre RSA vessels to fish by means of rod and line within the SSF district.

 

It is important to recognise that while these new boats offer more comfort and enhanced safety to the Recreational Sea Angler; they are still only licensed to carry the same amount of anglers as permitted on the smaller boats TWELVE ANGLERS.

 

At the centre of this debate is a boat called Channel Chieftain which was boarded by your Fishery Officers while it was participating in an international fishing competition held in the SSFD waters near Weymouth.

 

Like many other of these new vessels she offers a wonderful platform for Sea Angling with the advantage of an onboard toilet, a comfortable lounge/dining area and well fitted galley. Indeed she is seen by many as being the flagship of the Weymouth Charter Fishing Feet and is the result of a visionary skipper who has risked all that he owns to build this futuristic angling vessel.

This skipper should be congratulated for his forward thinking in building his dream vessel and should not have to endure the risk of losing it all for the enforcement of a bylaw that was not intended to affect this type of operation and is clearly in need of up dating

 

At your last quarterly meting you were asked to make the necessary amendment to the Twelve Metre bylaw so as to exclude RSA vessels from it.

However the CFO advised you that an amendment to the law might be rejected by DEFRA. If the changes were not accepted by DEFRA it could lead to the area having no byelaw covering vessel sizes,  thus any boat - be it RSA or commercial - could then fish right up to the district shore line.

However in a letter written by the CFO to Dave Gibson, who is a Director of the PBA, there is an admission by the CFO that he is aware that the same byelaw has already been amended on two previous occasions since its original implication, so why has he seen fit to offer advise that would lead you to rejecting the idea of making an amendment that would address this problem.

 

Defra’s own documents that outline the making & amending of byelaws indeed contradicts the CFO’s statement and I now quote from section 4 of DEFRA’s “Procedure for making byelaws – Guidance Notes”

 

On receipt of the sealed byelaws, provided that they correspond with those for which provisional approval has already been given and no representations have been received, the byelaws will normally be confirmed and returned to the committee within two weeks.

 

Where representations have been received copies may be forwarded to the committee for their comments before any decision is taken on whether the byelaws should be confirmed.

In contentious cases, particularly those where the arguments are finely balanced, it is open to the Secretary of State under section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 to order a public inquiry to be held.

It is rare for inquiries to be held into byelaw applications and in the normal course the Secretary of State would hope that the issues, and any scope for compromise, might be determined by discussion locally between the committee and the objectors.

 

So, According to DEFRA, there would be no risk of the district being unprotected and thus there can surely be no reasonable argument not to apply for an amendment, unless of course this committee has adopted an anti angling stance.

Indeed could the defamatory comments that you have been constantly fed in the wording of some of the CFOs remarks featured in his quarterly reports, in which he refers to the behaviour of ‘Hobby Fishermen, Charter Boat Anglers and Carter Boat Operators for example be misleading this committee.

 

I would like to suggest that you should ask why it was that the boat that started this debate was boarded in the first place; I understand that it was a specific instruction from the CFO to Dave May the officer in charge of the Southern Sea Fishery patrol vessel.

 

If the CFO was content to write to the owners of the other over 12 metre vessels  that were also engaged in this competition, why did he feel the need to disrupt the event by ordering the boarding of just one of them?  Why was the Channel Chieftain singled out? And more importantly was this committee consulted about this before the events of September 2007?

 

As I have said Channel Chieftain was boarded during an important International event hosted by Weymouth Port and supported by the Weymouth & Portland Borough Council and was worth in excess of £450.000 to the local economy.

Clearly the public are entitled to know if this incident happens to be a personal matter. Or is the CFO seizing upon an opportunity to yet again discredit the port of Weymouth with its large charter fleet, or is it just an attack on recreational sea angling in general?

 

Whatever the case I trust the committee will address this situation with the utmost urgency given that further fishing competitions are planed to take place from Weymouth this summer.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen I would like to thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity to address you today and it is my hope that my contribution may be of some help to your deliberations both today and hopefully the RSA lobby will be able to continue to do so in the future.

 

 

There has been a considerable amount of support for a change to the 12 meter bylaw  (Bylaw 16)

However at a previous meeting the CFO has recommended no change be made.

His argument was that :-

 

1. It would leave the fishery open to pleasure boats with an unrestricted amount of anglers thus the impact to the stock could be damaging ( Unlikely but possible. Ok so include in the wording of the amendment ‘Restricted to Twelve Anglers’)

2. The original intention of the Law. His definition differs to that of the former Chairman of the Committee Councillor Alan Shotter who was chairman of the committee at the time of the original making of the law. (Indeed we posted Councillor Shotter’s letter last month which proved the point)

3. That it would be unfair on the commercial fishing boats who would like larger boats for there comfort and safety (Larger Fishing boats would take more fish thus a bigger impact on the stock and that would be the only reason that commercial operators would want bigger boats, besides they already have boats that are over Twelve meters operating out of Weymouth which the Fishery Officers seem to ignore.)

4. The amount of boats effected is to small to worry about as they would not effect the local economy. (At a guess I would expect to see 75% of the current RSA charter boats in the SSF district being replaced over the next five to ten years with the majority being the twin hull cats over twelve meters. Now that will have an effect.)  

5. It is unfair to expect the Commercial boats who have to buy a Licence to operate and are restricted to Quotas to then fish next to RSA and Hobby fishing boats (Commercial boats land 97% of the fish and that is after they have thrown back 75% of what they catch most of which is dead. Where as the RSA land just 3% and the return 90% of what they catch alive. Further more other Sea Fisheries have amended their bylaw without any problem or complaint from the commercial sector so what is the problem.)

6. Comments and postings on some web sites has been less than helpful (The last time I checked this was still a country of free speech so Mr Carrier, If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen would be my advice.)

 

It is on these point that I feel the CFO has mislead the committee as was stated in my address.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16th May 2008

 

I have today received a response from the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee (SSFC)

 

It comes by way of a letter dated 14th May 2008 from the Solicitors who act on behalf of the SSFC and their Clark and Chief Fishery Officer (Ian Carrier)

 

While the letter is ‘not for publication’ I will tell you that it accuses me of making a false statement and that my remarks are inaccurate and defamatory.

The SSFC also ask that I publish a Statement from them to quote ‘Set the record straight’

Why they can not do this on there own web site is beyond me but then SSFC site has not been updated for so long that it is as outdated as the bylaws that it imposes.

 

So here is SSFC Statement in full

Our initial response to this statement is as follows

 

Item 1. The SSFC statement about the bylaw. While we accept  the wording of the bylaw we would point out that the original intention of this bylaw was as stated by the former chairman, to prevent large trawlers from fishing in the SSFC area. The purpose of the bylaw was solely to protect the fish stock in the SSFC area. We are now aware that the only RSA vessel operating in the area at the time was, I believe ‘Torbay Bell’ and she was and presumably still is exempt from the law as she, like some other commercial boats operating prior to the introduction of said law and granted immunity.

 

Item 2. Did the CFO advise the SSFC that an amendment to the bylaw might be rejected by DEFRA.  The CFO’s document dated 7th January 2008 is quoted so we would like to draw your attention to items 3.3 and 8.3 of said document.

 

Clearly Mr Carrier is saying that the bylaw could be revoked. The point we make is that if other fishery areas have been able to amend there bylaw with out any such problems why dose he make this point indeed why cant the SSFC do the same and amend this bylaw.

 

 

Item 3. Our claim that there are commercial vessels over 12 meters in length operating out of Weymouth.

While we have no whish or intention of causing problems for the commercial operators it has been brought to our attention that some boats based in the port have had permanent modifications made to them which in turn has increased the overall length of some boats beyond twelve meters. Whether or not these boats need to be re registered, it is clear that some do not now meet with the measurement criteria that has been set out by the committee. While we stand by our statement there now seems to be some confusion about how SSFC actually measures a boat. I will endeavour to address this point as soon as possible and will make a posting once the situation has been clarified.

 

This web site appreciates the opportunity of an open debate on this issue and would like to thank the SSFC for its response even if we do not agree on some of the points raised.

The Rodbenders Site will continue to apply pressure on the SSFC to make an amendment to the bylaw in line with Cumbria and N& NW SFC who have seen that there is no increased impact on fish stocks from RSA boats which are still restricted to twelve anglers. We will continue to challenge the SSFC on the points and questions that remain unanswered, including why Mr Carrier gave an instruction to board Channel Chieftain when there were other boats over twelve meters fishing in the same area at the time. We accept that the fishery officers have a job to do however applying the law must be seen to be even handed and above reproach. If and when its not we reserve the right to ask questions.

 

AS ALWAYS WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Up date on the 12 meter rule

 

Paul Dore has e-mailed me to point out that on the SSFC web site is the following statement:-

 

There are currently 470 commercial fishing vessels registered to fish within the Southern Sea Fisheries District and 96 known charter fishing boats operating (DEFRA).  The Committee has a byelaw restricting the maximum size of commercial fishing vessels to under 12 metres overall length and it is estimated that 80% of all landings within the district are shellfish.

 

So there would appear to be a difference between Commercial and Charter Boats at the SSFC after all.

Thanks Paul

 

Please note that the CFO may have covered this in his report stating that his view is the charter b