Post by macky on Aug 1, 2005 12:41:20 GMT -5
here are the minutes from the 1st meeting of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers
thanx to nigel proctor (doc) for the copy of the minutes
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers
Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of the Steering Group – Friday 8th July 2005 at 19:15pm, held at the Broadacres public house.
Present; Phil Arnott (PA), Phil Jefferson (PJ), Steve I’Anson (SIA), Rob Neale (RN), Nigel Proctor (NP), Chris Scaife (CS), Martin Standley (MS), Martin Wilding (MW) & Jeremy Robinson (JR).
Apologies; Dave Brown (DB) & Graham Precious (GP)
Absent;
Tony Burman (TB) has subsequently contacted NP to say that he did not receive notification of the meeting and would have attended had he done so.
Paul Jefferson (PaJ); Paul has regretfully declined active membership within the group due to work and family commitments, but hopes to have input as and when possible.
Graham Hoose (GH), Graham indicated at the Meeting in Hull that he wished to be active in the group, unfortunately I lost his contact details and was unable to contact him prior to the first meeting. I have since relocated his details and will forward a copy of the minutes along with my apologies and the invitation to the next meeting.
NP opened the meeting and thanked all for attending, noting that it was extremely encouraging to see so many of the original number who committed themselves to active membership actually attending on a Friday evening.
NP stated that there were a few formal points to consider but hoped that these could be dealt with quickly giving adequate time for the more important issues.
1. Title of Representative Group
NP gave a brief summary of where the title originated from, stating that first intentions had been to limit the group to Yorkshire, however, since (TB) had intimated that he wished to be involved with the group and that the local sea fisheries committee (NESFC) had boundaries in Lincolnshire, it was felt that the group could benefit from an association with anglers based in Lincolnshire and that similarly the group could assist anglers based across the River Humber.
The first formal point was to determine a working title for the group with the options as outlined;
(i) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Recreational Sea Anglers (YALARSA)
(ii) Association of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Sea Anglers (AYLSA)
NP asked if there were any other suggestions or alternatives, all agree that option (i) was adequate given that the group had been referred to by this title in previous statements of intent. PA suggested that the word Recreational be dropped, the group agreed. The working title of the group will be;
The Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers.
2. Group Structure – Delegation of Responsibilities
NP pointed out that given the likely broadscale issues that the group would attempt to deal with, a relatively informal structure to the group would be beneficial, however, for the sake of fluidity within the meetings, a meeting chair should be appointed, along with a secretary to formulate output.
NP agreed to sit as chair of meetings and MS offered to act as secretary to the group, the group agreed and thanked the nominees for their commitment.
Secretary of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers will be Martin Standley.
Nigel Proctor will chair group meetings
3. Group Remit;
NP felt that to provide a reference point or terms of reference, the group needed to have a simple, wide-reaching but defined remit. NP had produced an option which he felt best summed up what the aim of the group should be, but pointed out that this was one mans view, this being;
To Promote and Develop Recreational Sea Angling within the boundaries of the Association and where possible influence policy in areas outwith that may have a detrimental affect on these aims.
The group felt that this indeed reflected what the group stood for and as both a remit and a reminder it was fit for purpose.
4. How to Disseminate Information and the Groups Output
The means of getting information across to the wider angling fraternity is an important aspect of what the group is trying to achieve, not just to ensure that the views the group express are indeed representative of the wider angling public in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but also to allow for the collation of opinion from both majority and minority views.
In order to be proactive in the dissemination of information points of contact have to be established, this has to start at group level.
Action Point 1. NP to co-ordinate and circulate the email addresses of all group members, to ensure that there is full contact within the group and telephone numbers of those who have no internet access.
Local Websites
The internet is going to be the initial mainstay of the group in terms of passing information to anglers within the associations boundaries, but also outside to enable any lessons learnt to be used within the wider angling fraternity and regions. As a result we require a comprehensive database of all locally orientated sea angling websites.
Action Point 2. All to compile and circulate the web addresses of all know sea angling sites within the boundaries of the association, to ensure that there is broadscale coverage throughout the region. MS to compile local database, once this has been achieved, the group can investigate the expansion of the emailing list to include websites outside the region.
MW pointed out that the group and local anglers would benefit enormously if the association had its own website, the group agreed. MW stated that he did know a webmaster who may be interested in getting a dedicated site up and running. NP asked MW to investigate further wrt feasibility, availability of the particular webmaster and potential costs.
Action Point 3. MW to contact webmaster with regard to establishing an association website.
Angling Clubs
CS pointed out that not all anglers have internet access, including two members of the present group, further dissemination should also be directed at angling clubs, although there wasn’t the need to circulate information relating to the groups activities to clubs outside the region.
Action Point 4. All to compile and circulate the contact details of all know sea angling clubs within the boundaries of the association. MS to compile database.
Local Press – Gazette etc.
The group felt that local press would be helpful in getting specific points across to the wider public and to inform anglers of meeting dates etc., however, it was considered that the local press could not be expected to carry the level of information the group hoped to be able to put out. SI’A stated that he though Mel Russ (Sea Angler) would be interested in the development of the group, SI’A has regular contact with Mel Russ and this would be an ideal vehicle to promote the groups output outside the regional press.
Action Point 5. SI’A to update Mel Russ as to the groups development especially with regard to any specific issues that may affect further afield.
Tackle Shops
The group felt that tackle shops were a viable point of contact and a reliable source of information, however, many anglers did not have the time to read lengthy documents or notes of importance, especially when the shop may be busy. It was considered that information should be disseminated through tackle shops but in a brief summary format, rather than in full documentary order. Tackle shops were also considered as an ideal vehicle to promote meetings and in the event that the group need a wider opinion, tackle shops could be the platform to promote questionnaires/surveys and or petitions.
RN added that open matches would also be an excellent distribution point where the group could distribute leaflets advertising meetings and other important summary information.
5. The NFSA – Promotion or Rejection
Should we join as an affiliate member or stay outside, similarly with B.A.S.S
A brief discussion took place on the benefits of being affiliated with the National Federation of Sea Anglers and as to whether the group felt this was a relevant move. There was no opposition and as the greater majority of the group members are personal members of the NFSA the unanimous decision was to join as an affiliated member. NP stated that he thought that there had been discussions within the NFSA regarding the status of affiliated club membership and was unsure of the current position. SI’A recommended that we apply to both the NFSA and BASS for membership (affiliated or otherwise) and await the response. NP offered to contact the NFSA and BASS with regard to joining and the relevant cost, PA asked to be copied into the dialogue.
Action point 5. NP to report back at the next meeting with costs for joining the NFSA and BASS, with a statement on the current position for associate membership of the NFSA.
A point was raised regarding the funding of membership, CS proposed that each member contribute a similar amount to cover the cost, the group felt this was appropriate.
6. Proposed Commercial Tope Fishery
NP gave a brief overview of the proposal by the NESFC to implement a byelaw prohibiting the landing of tope or parts thereof, following this NP outlined the plan by Mullenders of Lowestoft to establish a commercial long line fishery for tope, and the subsequent call for commercial fishermen throughout the UK to target them and send them to Lowestoft for processing to SE Asian markets (fins).
This brief outline explained the;
(i) Effects of commercial prosecution on a slow growing, late maturing species that spawned biennially;
(ii) Impacts to RSA including immediate loss of larger fish; reduced catch rate, long term recovery (30 years+)
National Picture; responses from the UK shark tagging programme, WWF, NFSA and individual anglers and disappointingly, there has been to date no response from government
The group condemned the short sighted exploitation of one of the few remaining true sports fish that most anglers could actually target without involving significant expense. That the move by Mullenders was a clear statement of contempt for the recreational sea angling fraternity, but also further indication of the fishing industries lack of foresight and unwillingness to accept that they can significantly impact the marine environment without regard to any long term effects. The old mentality of ‘its my sea, my fish and I’ll do with it as I wish’ is plainly still alive and flourishing. The group noted that the lack of a response from DEFRA and/or Ben Bradshaw was both disappointing and somewhat alarming, given the importance of this fish to local anglers, and charters vessels and anglers outside the district.
It was clear that given the geographical location of Lowestoft in relation to the Holderness coast, local anglers would be the first to notice any decline in sport. The group suggested a letter be sent to both DEFRA and Ben Bradshaw highlighting not only our concerns at the move by Mullenders to target tope, but also endorsing the NESFC proposed byelaw on tope.
SI’A reiterated the point he made at the meeting in Hull that some anglers may not be happy if a potential record tope was caught in the district and the angler was unable to make a claim because of the prohibition on landing, although from a personal point of view he was in favour of the proposed byelaw. NP stated that given the proposed plan by Mullenders and the potential for other SFC’s to take up the NESFC byelaw and implement it within their own districts, the loss of being able to make a record claim would be small compared to the significant benefits such a byelaw would have in maintaining the stock. In addition the NFSA did have a separate record list for trophy/record fish weighed at sea.
The group are extremely encouraged by the proposal of the NESFC to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof and fully endorse such a move.
Action point 6. NP to send a letter to DEFRA copied to Ben Bradshaw (as fisheries minister) outlining the groups position with regard to the prosecution of Tope by Mullenders of Lowestoft and moves to extend this throughout UK waters. The letter should fully endorse the proposed NESFC byelaw to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof within the committee’s district.
Action point 7. NP to send a letter to the NESFC supporting fully the proposed byelaw to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof within the committee’s district.
7. Bass Fishery
NP gave a brief overview of the proposal by the NESFC to implement a byelaw prohibiting the unlicensed intertidal netting of bass during the salmonid close season. The newly proposed byelaw will allow for the provision of 5 permits only with no other static gears placed inside the 5m depth contour.
This brief outline explained the;
(i) The main points of the byelaw
(ii) The pros and cons to RSA
NP stated that he had not received any feedback from the Chief Fisheries Officer (David McCandless) in relation to the letter dated 21/04/05 but would discuss with the CFO shortly.
Most members were fully aware of the subject since it had been such a high profile issue for the last 3 years and all had attended a number of meetings that had dealt solely with this issue. The members of the group still have reservations regarding certain points, NP felt that the 5m depth contour could create problems of determination, depending on which version of the chart individuals are working from, 1km from baselines may be more acceptable. CS however, felt that under the present circumstances any further delay is likely to have a greater impact on the fishery than would be the case by endorsing the implementation of the byelaw in its present format, this was endorsed unanimously by the group.
CS stated that he is still not certain whether the boundaries include Filey Bay, is this within the byelaw (open to indiscriminate intertidal netting) or is it out of bounds? SI’A pointed out that there are a lot of small bass in and around the Filey Bay area, more so than ever noted previously, unregulated netting is and will become an even greater potential threat to these fish if allowed to continue.
Action point 8. NP to send a letter to the NESFC requesting clarification on the status of Filey Bay under the proposed new byelaw.
Many of the group members were unsure of the rules regarding the deployment of nets, especially during the summer season, when some nets appeared to be in breach of legislation but were never examined by NESFC officers or the EA. Anglers frequently refer to illegal nets without knowing whether a net is legitimate or otherwise, this cannot aid enforcement, anglers consider themselves to be the eyes and the ears of fishery protection in some areas, but if they are unsure they don’t bother to report a potential breach of byelaw/salmon legislation.
NP thought that all nets should have an identifying marker or tag affixed to the net, the majority of the group who had witnessed intertidal nets during both the summer and close season could not remember any identifying markers. The group considered that it would ease any confusion over the legality of intertidal nets (all year round) if all nets were marked with the identified permit number. Further to this, the NESFC and EA could issue the group or point of contact within the group, a list of legitimate permit/licence numbers (these do not have to be related to an identified permit or licence holder by name).
Action point 9. In conjunction with AP8, NP to request from the NESFC a comprehensive list of rules and netting byelaws. Further to this, a request also for the permit numbers issued (with anonymity), a copy of the letter should also be sent to the Environment Agency requesting similar action for salmon licence holders on (as in AP8.).
The group ultimately decided that given 5 permits is as good as they could have hoped for, any further delay may further exacerbate the situation, the group should recommend the endorsement of the byelaw in its present format.
Action point 10. In conjunction with AP8 and AP9, NP to send a letter to the NESFC endorsing the proposed intertidal netting byelaw.
NESFC application for MSC Accreditation;
The group discussed the merits of Marine Stewardship Council accreditation of the intertidal bass fishery, and whilst some felt that such accreditation would promote the bass fishery as solely a commercial exploitative fishery, the consensus was that that such tight control and the promotion of sustainability would enhance the stock. This would produce increased availability to recreational sea anglers and the efforts to achieve sustainability within the bass fishery should not be undermined. It is clear that the accreditation process will take time, the NESFC do not have any clear indication of the population size (local and transitory), neither do they have data relating to effort or current landings, with the exception of the proposed 5 permit holders. As a consequence, the issue of sustainability has yet to be determined.
The group, however, do support the chief fishery officer and his staff in their attempts to provide sustainability within the fishery in the future and by limiting effort at the present time to ensure such.
Action point 11. NP to send a letter to the NESFC supporting the committee’s pursuit of Marine Stewardship Council accreditation in the bass fishery.
Bag Limit Byelaw
The group reiterated the stance taken at the meeting in Hull, that a 2 fish bag limit was acceptable within the bass fishery, this was preferred to the original option of 4 fish per person. However, as the bass intertidal byelaw was open to review after five years, the group felt that such an option should be available for the proposed bag limitation regulation.
Action point 12. NP to formally request to the NESFC that the bass bag limit be reviewed in five years, as per the intertidal netting byelaw.
Endorsement of Bass Management Plan (BMP)
The group were extremely encouraged by the production of such a formidable document, the high quality indicates that those anglers now representing recreational sea anglers throughout the UK had a proven record in dealing with the managers of fisheries and can enter dialogue at a relatively correspondent level. PA pointed out that much of the present dialogue with the NESFC with regard to the intertidal bass netting byelaw may be superfluous if DEFRA follow the advice of the PM’s strategy Unit and initiate the Bass Management Plan (BMP). NP felt that this was still some time away and that it was likely to be a phased implementation at that, in the mean time the byelaw should proceed unhindered to protect this year’s transitory population, especially the 2002 year class which was considered to be significant.
8. Humber Power Station – Fish Impingement
In the absence of further information from TB, agenda item 8 ‘Humber Power Station – Fish Impingement’ was put back to the next group meeting when hopefully TB can provide an update
9. East Riding County Council – Monopoly on RSA?
This was considered as a general point for discussion, as anglers contribute a significant amount of money into both local and rural economies, what value do we get for our money? Experience dictates that the East Riding County Council delivers minimal facilities or support to the recreational angling sector. Their sponsorship of the British Beach Open Championship being the pinnacle of their input to RSA within the area.
The Commercial SAC, based in Withernsea recently approached a well known angling representative within the county council with regard to potential support for the Junior Open Beach Championship they were planning to hold in 2005. They were told that there was little point in holding such a match as the council already ran the junior championship within their own sponsored British Open match. It can be construed that they do not wish competition, nevertheless the BOBC attracts a minimal entry from junior anglers and caters for the adult, it also provides significant advertisement for the ERYCC and their sponsors, without actually putting anything tangible into local recreational sea angling.
PA gave a brief summary of his attempts to raise the profile of RSA within the ERYCC and to gain access for a representative on a number of committees which have significant input into the management options for the coastal area (ICZM & HAG etc.). Instead these committees had a significant commercial representation but anglers were not considered important enough to warrant invitation or even acknowledgment. PA was pursuing membership of the relevant committees but was not getting a response from the relevant authorities. NP asked if any member was aware if the North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) had a similar stance or indeed was there a management committee for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)? Members were not aware of any similar management strategy, but felt that the NYCC contributed little in the way of support and facilities for RSA. SI’A agreed to determine any such policy and or management strategy and liaise with PA with a view to raising the profile of RSA within the boundaries of the NYCC.
The group felt that it was appropriate to send out a generic letter informing the county councils of the value of RSA (quoting Drew) and requesting that anglers be kept informed wrt any management policies/working groups that may affect sea angling within their boundaries.
Action point 13. MS to liaise with PA to produce a letter than can be addresses to the relevant county councils (ERYCC, NYCC & North Lincolnshire County Council (NLCC))
PA stated that he has applied to go on a National coaching course; RN indicated that he was willing to apply for the National course as well.
10. Any other business
NP asked if there was any other business.
SI’A felt that given the angling potential along the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire coasts, some vessels currently employed within the commercial sector could possibly diversify into recreational sea angling during the summer months. NP felt that this may be a viable option, and possibly a welcome move, given the extremely poor quality of the majority of charter skippers currently working out of Bridlington, although there a couple of vessels and skippers who were better than the average charters on offer, who catered mainly for the holidaymaker. NP stated that the NESFC were currently investigating the potential for diversification through the commercial – angling diversification project of which a few members of the group were involved in.
NP requested that given the group had a duty to ensure that the output was truly representative of local angling opinion, individuals should not quote or produce documents under the name of the association until such time that formal agreement had been obtained. This would not prevent individual members from working on issues not related to the group, but that they should refrain from quoting or using the associations name when doing so. This was agreed unanimously.
NP raised the issue of netting around the Flamborough Head SAC, many bass and other species were being removed from the area for which there was no means of determining the effect on the overall health of the population. There is little point in protecting the stock if they are being extracted at unsustainable levels as soon as they migrate out of the ‘conservation area’ (Holderness coast). It was felt that this was a matter within the remit of the NESFC, but that the group should press for action on this issue. There had been a number of verified reports that a large quantity of seabirds (including auks, razorbills, puffins and a gannet) from the Bempton Cliff sanctuary had been drowned in gill nets set along the rock edges of the sanctuary.
Given the lack of time available, the group decided to discuss this further at the next meeting.
11. Date and venue of next meeting
All agreed that the venue was centrally located and suitable to hold meetings of this nature, the next meeting will therefore be held at the Broadacres Public House on Friday 6th August 2005. The meeting will commence at 19:15pm.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 23:25pm.[/color]
thanx to nigel proctor (doc) for the copy of the minutes
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers
Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of the Steering Group – Friday 8th July 2005 at 19:15pm, held at the Broadacres public house.
Present; Phil Arnott (PA), Phil Jefferson (PJ), Steve I’Anson (SIA), Rob Neale (RN), Nigel Proctor (NP), Chris Scaife (CS), Martin Standley (MS), Martin Wilding (MW) & Jeremy Robinson (JR).
Apologies; Dave Brown (DB) & Graham Precious (GP)
Absent;
Tony Burman (TB) has subsequently contacted NP to say that he did not receive notification of the meeting and would have attended had he done so.
Paul Jefferson (PaJ); Paul has regretfully declined active membership within the group due to work and family commitments, but hopes to have input as and when possible.
Graham Hoose (GH), Graham indicated at the Meeting in Hull that he wished to be active in the group, unfortunately I lost his contact details and was unable to contact him prior to the first meeting. I have since relocated his details and will forward a copy of the minutes along with my apologies and the invitation to the next meeting.
NP opened the meeting and thanked all for attending, noting that it was extremely encouraging to see so many of the original number who committed themselves to active membership actually attending on a Friday evening.
NP stated that there were a few formal points to consider but hoped that these could be dealt with quickly giving adequate time for the more important issues.
1. Title of Representative Group
NP gave a brief summary of where the title originated from, stating that first intentions had been to limit the group to Yorkshire, however, since (TB) had intimated that he wished to be involved with the group and that the local sea fisheries committee (NESFC) had boundaries in Lincolnshire, it was felt that the group could benefit from an association with anglers based in Lincolnshire and that similarly the group could assist anglers based across the River Humber.
The first formal point was to determine a working title for the group with the options as outlined;
(i) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Recreational Sea Anglers (YALARSA)
(ii) Association of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Sea Anglers (AYLSA)
NP asked if there were any other suggestions or alternatives, all agree that option (i) was adequate given that the group had been referred to by this title in previous statements of intent. PA suggested that the word Recreational be dropped, the group agreed. The working title of the group will be;
The Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers.
2. Group Structure – Delegation of Responsibilities
NP pointed out that given the likely broadscale issues that the group would attempt to deal with, a relatively informal structure to the group would be beneficial, however, for the sake of fluidity within the meetings, a meeting chair should be appointed, along with a secretary to formulate output.
NP agreed to sit as chair of meetings and MS offered to act as secretary to the group, the group agreed and thanked the nominees for their commitment.
Secretary of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Association of Sea Anglers will be Martin Standley.
Nigel Proctor will chair group meetings
3. Group Remit;
NP felt that to provide a reference point or terms of reference, the group needed to have a simple, wide-reaching but defined remit. NP had produced an option which he felt best summed up what the aim of the group should be, but pointed out that this was one mans view, this being;
To Promote and Develop Recreational Sea Angling within the boundaries of the Association and where possible influence policy in areas outwith that may have a detrimental affect on these aims.
The group felt that this indeed reflected what the group stood for and as both a remit and a reminder it was fit for purpose.
4. How to Disseminate Information and the Groups Output
The means of getting information across to the wider angling fraternity is an important aspect of what the group is trying to achieve, not just to ensure that the views the group express are indeed representative of the wider angling public in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but also to allow for the collation of opinion from both majority and minority views.
In order to be proactive in the dissemination of information points of contact have to be established, this has to start at group level.
Action Point 1. NP to co-ordinate and circulate the email addresses of all group members, to ensure that there is full contact within the group and telephone numbers of those who have no internet access.
Local Websites
The internet is going to be the initial mainstay of the group in terms of passing information to anglers within the associations boundaries, but also outside to enable any lessons learnt to be used within the wider angling fraternity and regions. As a result we require a comprehensive database of all locally orientated sea angling websites.
Action Point 2. All to compile and circulate the web addresses of all know sea angling sites within the boundaries of the association, to ensure that there is broadscale coverage throughout the region. MS to compile local database, once this has been achieved, the group can investigate the expansion of the emailing list to include websites outside the region.
MW pointed out that the group and local anglers would benefit enormously if the association had its own website, the group agreed. MW stated that he did know a webmaster who may be interested in getting a dedicated site up and running. NP asked MW to investigate further wrt feasibility, availability of the particular webmaster and potential costs.
Action Point 3. MW to contact webmaster with regard to establishing an association website.
Angling Clubs
CS pointed out that not all anglers have internet access, including two members of the present group, further dissemination should also be directed at angling clubs, although there wasn’t the need to circulate information relating to the groups activities to clubs outside the region.
Action Point 4. All to compile and circulate the contact details of all know sea angling clubs within the boundaries of the association. MS to compile database.
Local Press – Gazette etc.
The group felt that local press would be helpful in getting specific points across to the wider public and to inform anglers of meeting dates etc., however, it was considered that the local press could not be expected to carry the level of information the group hoped to be able to put out. SI’A stated that he though Mel Russ (Sea Angler) would be interested in the development of the group, SI’A has regular contact with Mel Russ and this would be an ideal vehicle to promote the groups output outside the regional press.
Action Point 5. SI’A to update Mel Russ as to the groups development especially with regard to any specific issues that may affect further afield.
Tackle Shops
The group felt that tackle shops were a viable point of contact and a reliable source of information, however, many anglers did not have the time to read lengthy documents or notes of importance, especially when the shop may be busy. It was considered that information should be disseminated through tackle shops but in a brief summary format, rather than in full documentary order. Tackle shops were also considered as an ideal vehicle to promote meetings and in the event that the group need a wider opinion, tackle shops could be the platform to promote questionnaires/surveys and or petitions.
RN added that open matches would also be an excellent distribution point where the group could distribute leaflets advertising meetings and other important summary information.
5. The NFSA – Promotion or Rejection
Should we join as an affiliate member or stay outside, similarly with B.A.S.S
A brief discussion took place on the benefits of being affiliated with the National Federation of Sea Anglers and as to whether the group felt this was a relevant move. There was no opposition and as the greater majority of the group members are personal members of the NFSA the unanimous decision was to join as an affiliated member. NP stated that he thought that there had been discussions within the NFSA regarding the status of affiliated club membership and was unsure of the current position. SI’A recommended that we apply to both the NFSA and BASS for membership (affiliated or otherwise) and await the response. NP offered to contact the NFSA and BASS with regard to joining and the relevant cost, PA asked to be copied into the dialogue.
Action point 5. NP to report back at the next meeting with costs for joining the NFSA and BASS, with a statement on the current position for associate membership of the NFSA.
A point was raised regarding the funding of membership, CS proposed that each member contribute a similar amount to cover the cost, the group felt this was appropriate.
6. Proposed Commercial Tope Fishery
NP gave a brief overview of the proposal by the NESFC to implement a byelaw prohibiting the landing of tope or parts thereof, following this NP outlined the plan by Mullenders of Lowestoft to establish a commercial long line fishery for tope, and the subsequent call for commercial fishermen throughout the UK to target them and send them to Lowestoft for processing to SE Asian markets (fins).
This brief outline explained the;
(i) Effects of commercial prosecution on a slow growing, late maturing species that spawned biennially;
(ii) Impacts to RSA including immediate loss of larger fish; reduced catch rate, long term recovery (30 years+)
National Picture; responses from the UK shark tagging programme, WWF, NFSA and individual anglers and disappointingly, there has been to date no response from government
The group condemned the short sighted exploitation of one of the few remaining true sports fish that most anglers could actually target without involving significant expense. That the move by Mullenders was a clear statement of contempt for the recreational sea angling fraternity, but also further indication of the fishing industries lack of foresight and unwillingness to accept that they can significantly impact the marine environment without regard to any long term effects. The old mentality of ‘its my sea, my fish and I’ll do with it as I wish’ is plainly still alive and flourishing. The group noted that the lack of a response from DEFRA and/or Ben Bradshaw was both disappointing and somewhat alarming, given the importance of this fish to local anglers, and charters vessels and anglers outside the district.
It was clear that given the geographical location of Lowestoft in relation to the Holderness coast, local anglers would be the first to notice any decline in sport. The group suggested a letter be sent to both DEFRA and Ben Bradshaw highlighting not only our concerns at the move by Mullenders to target tope, but also endorsing the NESFC proposed byelaw on tope.
SI’A reiterated the point he made at the meeting in Hull that some anglers may not be happy if a potential record tope was caught in the district and the angler was unable to make a claim because of the prohibition on landing, although from a personal point of view he was in favour of the proposed byelaw. NP stated that given the proposed plan by Mullenders and the potential for other SFC’s to take up the NESFC byelaw and implement it within their own districts, the loss of being able to make a record claim would be small compared to the significant benefits such a byelaw would have in maintaining the stock. In addition the NFSA did have a separate record list for trophy/record fish weighed at sea.
The group are extremely encouraged by the proposal of the NESFC to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof and fully endorse such a move.
Action point 6. NP to send a letter to DEFRA copied to Ben Bradshaw (as fisheries minister) outlining the groups position with regard to the prosecution of Tope by Mullenders of Lowestoft and moves to extend this throughout UK waters. The letter should fully endorse the proposed NESFC byelaw to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof within the committee’s district.
Action point 7. NP to send a letter to the NESFC supporting fully the proposed byelaw to prohibit the landing of tope or parts thereof within the committee’s district.
7. Bass Fishery
NP gave a brief overview of the proposal by the NESFC to implement a byelaw prohibiting the unlicensed intertidal netting of bass during the salmonid close season. The newly proposed byelaw will allow for the provision of 5 permits only with no other static gears placed inside the 5m depth contour.
This brief outline explained the;
(i) The main points of the byelaw
(ii) The pros and cons to RSA
NP stated that he had not received any feedback from the Chief Fisheries Officer (David McCandless) in relation to the letter dated 21/04/05 but would discuss with the CFO shortly.
Most members were fully aware of the subject since it had been such a high profile issue for the last 3 years and all had attended a number of meetings that had dealt solely with this issue. The members of the group still have reservations regarding certain points, NP felt that the 5m depth contour could create problems of determination, depending on which version of the chart individuals are working from, 1km from baselines may be more acceptable. CS however, felt that under the present circumstances any further delay is likely to have a greater impact on the fishery than would be the case by endorsing the implementation of the byelaw in its present format, this was endorsed unanimously by the group.
CS stated that he is still not certain whether the boundaries include Filey Bay, is this within the byelaw (open to indiscriminate intertidal netting) or is it out of bounds? SI’A pointed out that there are a lot of small bass in and around the Filey Bay area, more so than ever noted previously, unregulated netting is and will become an even greater potential threat to these fish if allowed to continue.
Action point 8. NP to send a letter to the NESFC requesting clarification on the status of Filey Bay under the proposed new byelaw.
Many of the group members were unsure of the rules regarding the deployment of nets, especially during the summer season, when some nets appeared to be in breach of legislation but were never examined by NESFC officers or the EA. Anglers frequently refer to illegal nets without knowing whether a net is legitimate or otherwise, this cannot aid enforcement, anglers consider themselves to be the eyes and the ears of fishery protection in some areas, but if they are unsure they don’t bother to report a potential breach of byelaw/salmon legislation.
NP thought that all nets should have an identifying marker or tag affixed to the net, the majority of the group who had witnessed intertidal nets during both the summer and close season could not remember any identifying markers. The group considered that it would ease any confusion over the legality of intertidal nets (all year round) if all nets were marked with the identified permit number. Further to this, the NESFC and EA could issue the group or point of contact within the group, a list of legitimate permit/licence numbers (these do not have to be related to an identified permit or licence holder by name).
Action point 9. In conjunction with AP8, NP to request from the NESFC a comprehensive list of rules and netting byelaws. Further to this, a request also for the permit numbers issued (with anonymity), a copy of the letter should also be sent to the Environment Agency requesting similar action for salmon licence holders on (as in AP8.).
The group ultimately decided that given 5 permits is as good as they could have hoped for, any further delay may further exacerbate the situation, the group should recommend the endorsement of the byelaw in its present format.
Action point 10. In conjunction with AP8 and AP9, NP to send a letter to the NESFC endorsing the proposed intertidal netting byelaw.
NESFC application for MSC Accreditation;
The group discussed the merits of Marine Stewardship Council accreditation of the intertidal bass fishery, and whilst some felt that such accreditation would promote the bass fishery as solely a commercial exploitative fishery, the consensus was that that such tight control and the promotion of sustainability would enhance the stock. This would produce increased availability to recreational sea anglers and the efforts to achieve sustainability within the bass fishery should not be undermined. It is clear that the accreditation process will take time, the NESFC do not have any clear indication of the population size (local and transitory), neither do they have data relating to effort or current landings, with the exception of the proposed 5 permit holders. As a consequence, the issue of sustainability has yet to be determined.
The group, however, do support the chief fishery officer and his staff in their attempts to provide sustainability within the fishery in the future and by limiting effort at the present time to ensure such.
Action point 11. NP to send a letter to the NESFC supporting the committee’s pursuit of Marine Stewardship Council accreditation in the bass fishery.
Bag Limit Byelaw
The group reiterated the stance taken at the meeting in Hull, that a 2 fish bag limit was acceptable within the bass fishery, this was preferred to the original option of 4 fish per person. However, as the bass intertidal byelaw was open to review after five years, the group felt that such an option should be available for the proposed bag limitation regulation.
Action point 12. NP to formally request to the NESFC that the bass bag limit be reviewed in five years, as per the intertidal netting byelaw.
Endorsement of Bass Management Plan (BMP)
The group were extremely encouraged by the production of such a formidable document, the high quality indicates that those anglers now representing recreational sea anglers throughout the UK had a proven record in dealing with the managers of fisheries and can enter dialogue at a relatively correspondent level. PA pointed out that much of the present dialogue with the NESFC with regard to the intertidal bass netting byelaw may be superfluous if DEFRA follow the advice of the PM’s strategy Unit and initiate the Bass Management Plan (BMP). NP felt that this was still some time away and that it was likely to be a phased implementation at that, in the mean time the byelaw should proceed unhindered to protect this year’s transitory population, especially the 2002 year class which was considered to be significant.
8. Humber Power Station – Fish Impingement
In the absence of further information from TB, agenda item 8 ‘Humber Power Station – Fish Impingement’ was put back to the next group meeting when hopefully TB can provide an update
9. East Riding County Council – Monopoly on RSA?
This was considered as a general point for discussion, as anglers contribute a significant amount of money into both local and rural economies, what value do we get for our money? Experience dictates that the East Riding County Council delivers minimal facilities or support to the recreational angling sector. Their sponsorship of the British Beach Open Championship being the pinnacle of their input to RSA within the area.
The Commercial SAC, based in Withernsea recently approached a well known angling representative within the county council with regard to potential support for the Junior Open Beach Championship they were planning to hold in 2005. They were told that there was little point in holding such a match as the council already ran the junior championship within their own sponsored British Open match. It can be construed that they do not wish competition, nevertheless the BOBC attracts a minimal entry from junior anglers and caters for the adult, it also provides significant advertisement for the ERYCC and their sponsors, without actually putting anything tangible into local recreational sea angling.
PA gave a brief summary of his attempts to raise the profile of RSA within the ERYCC and to gain access for a representative on a number of committees which have significant input into the management options for the coastal area (ICZM & HAG etc.). Instead these committees had a significant commercial representation but anglers were not considered important enough to warrant invitation or even acknowledgment. PA was pursuing membership of the relevant committees but was not getting a response from the relevant authorities. NP asked if any member was aware if the North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) had a similar stance or indeed was there a management committee for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)? Members were not aware of any similar management strategy, but felt that the NYCC contributed little in the way of support and facilities for RSA. SI’A agreed to determine any such policy and or management strategy and liaise with PA with a view to raising the profile of RSA within the boundaries of the NYCC.
The group felt that it was appropriate to send out a generic letter informing the county councils of the value of RSA (quoting Drew) and requesting that anglers be kept informed wrt any management policies/working groups that may affect sea angling within their boundaries.
Action point 13. MS to liaise with PA to produce a letter than can be addresses to the relevant county councils (ERYCC, NYCC & North Lincolnshire County Council (NLCC))
PA stated that he has applied to go on a National coaching course; RN indicated that he was willing to apply for the National course as well.
10. Any other business
NP asked if there was any other business.
SI’A felt that given the angling potential along the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire coasts, some vessels currently employed within the commercial sector could possibly diversify into recreational sea angling during the summer months. NP felt that this may be a viable option, and possibly a welcome move, given the extremely poor quality of the majority of charter skippers currently working out of Bridlington, although there a couple of vessels and skippers who were better than the average charters on offer, who catered mainly for the holidaymaker. NP stated that the NESFC were currently investigating the potential for diversification through the commercial – angling diversification project of which a few members of the group were involved in.
NP requested that given the group had a duty to ensure that the output was truly representative of local angling opinion, individuals should not quote or produce documents under the name of the association until such time that formal agreement had been obtained. This would not prevent individual members from working on issues not related to the group, but that they should refrain from quoting or using the associations name when doing so. This was agreed unanimously.
NP raised the issue of netting around the Flamborough Head SAC, many bass and other species were being removed from the area for which there was no means of determining the effect on the overall health of the population. There is little point in protecting the stock if they are being extracted at unsustainable levels as soon as they migrate out of the ‘conservation area’ (Holderness coast). It was felt that this was a matter within the remit of the NESFC, but that the group should press for action on this issue. There had been a number of verified reports that a large quantity of seabirds (including auks, razorbills, puffins and a gannet) from the Bempton Cliff sanctuary had been drowned in gill nets set along the rock edges of the sanctuary.
Given the lack of time available, the group decided to discuss this further at the next meeting.
11. Date and venue of next meeting
All agreed that the venue was centrally located and suitable to hold meetings of this nature, the next meeting will therefore be held at the Broadacres Public House on Friday 6th August 2005. The meeting will commence at 19:15pm.
There being no further business the meeting was closed at 23:25pm.[/color]
