Hello All,
This is the 3rdnews briefing for 2008. If you would like this bulletin to go to other recipients please let me know.
John Crudden
AGM of EAA-Ireland.
I propose we hold the AGM on Wednesday 26th March. The ACI has invited EAA-Ireland to amalgamate with it and accordingly a motion to wind up the organisation will go before the meeting. This is the only available date we have for this meeting before the ACI AGM on the 5th April. Please let me know your views.
Ken Ball
The National Federation of Anglers in the UK has announced the passing of Ken Ball who died on Wednesday February 20 after a long illness. He was 75. Ken was President of the NFA for 12 years from 1992 – 2004 and will be remembered for his outstanding contribution to the sport and his ever present enthusiasm for angling.Ken was a regular visitor to Killeshandra in Cavan in the 60’s and 70’s.
EAA Board
Next meeting of the EAA Board takes place in Brussels on Tuesday 4th March.
EAA Subgroup - River Systems
The next meeting scheduled for Thursday March 20 has been postponed to a later date. The suggested dates are now 3rd or 24th April.
EAA Subgroup –Sea
The next meeting takes place in Brussels on 19th & 20th April 2008.
EIFAC Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries
The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Council is presently working on a code of conduct for recreational fisheries. The Council is made up of Government Fisheries representatives from each MemberState along with NGO’s. EAA is one of the latter. Joe Caffrey (CFB) is the Irish representative. If anyone wants a copy of the latest draft please let me know and I can email it.
Response by the European Anglers Alliance (EAA) concerning the
‘CONSULTATION on an EU Action Plan for Sharks’
Introduction:
We note that the intended ‘Shark plan’ is not limited to sharks but includes all elasmobranchs.
We welcome increased efforts to deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
We would like to stress that anglers do target many kinds of elasmobranchs but most are released. Only a few species are landed to be eaten. Recreational angling for elasmobranchs is common in most EU waters but shark angling -due to lack of species and abundance- is insignificant in the Baltic Sea, around Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium. In UK and Ireland shark angling is a viable part of the recreational angling sector.
Recreational angling for elasmobranches generates substantial economic output but more detailed socio-economic studies for these and other fish species are needed.
We are confident that some elasmobranches can and should be made recreational angling species only as part of conservation or restoration plans, to the benefit of the fish stocks, recreational angling and its dependant business and local communities.
We would like to draw your attention to another consultation response given by SOS, Save Our Sharks, which deliver other useful information about elasmobranchs and the recreational angling community.
We would like to emphasize that recreational anglers have been or are involved in a number of shark and other elasmobranchs tagging programmes in various European countries initiated by scientists or anglers themselves.[1]A review (2001) of 64 shark-tagging schemes around the world ‘were initiated by researchers who either had to catch and tag fish themselves or persuade anglers to assist them’[2]
Field of action n° 1: Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark catches.
Objective
Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
Concerning the proposed measure at MemberState level to
‘Monitor recreational catches and distinguish between the fishing mortality exerted by recreational and commercial fishing.’
we would like to stress, that:
a) Fishing mortality. It is important that it is ‘mortality’ to be measured and not only catch amount or volume as anglers release most elasmobranchs caught.
b) Indeed, it is important to distinguish between commercial and recreational fishing. However, it is equally important to distinguish between the various and very different sub-sectors of recreational fishing (angling/rod-and-line fishing, recreational long-line fishing, netting, spear-fishing etc.).
In this consultation paper the Commission doesn’t identify the various recreational fishing sectors. The terms in use are: ‘sportfisheries’ and ‘recreational fishing’ (p. 3), ‘directed recreational’, and ‘by-catch recreational fisheries’ (p. 9), ‘recreational fisheries’ (p. 10), ‘recreational catches’ (p. 11).
The various sub-sectors show great differences from a conservation point of view and with regard to their socio-economic contribution to society. Recreational angling (rod and line fishing) scores high on both accounts. Recreational angling is one of the most sustainable of fishing methods with in most cases the highest socio-economic output per fish compared with other sectors within recreational (and commercial) fisheries.[3]
In most or all European coastal states there are far more participants within recreational sea angling (8-10 million) than in any other recreational fishing sector[4]. Indeed, due to the high number of participants anglers catch many fish but it shouldn’t be forgotten that a great deal of these fish are released back to the sea with a relatively low mortality rate. The fish mortality per capita is perceived as much lower for recreational angling than it is for most other forms of recreational fishing (and commercial fishing). There are several reasons for that: In the nature of the case a rod and line with one or few hooks is not the most efficient of catching gears; overall anglers’ release rate is high[5] with a low mortality rate; anglers’ rods are under surveillance all the time, while nets often are left fishing on their own over night or for several days; if the fish are not hungry/feeding then anglers -and others using hook and lines- cannot catch the fish, nets take them all (see annex: ‘Case: the Cornwall spurdog fishery’; the economic incentitive to accumulate catches is not there as recreational anglers –in most countries- do not sell the fish they catch. [6]
We urge the Commission and MemberStates to identify and keep separate the various recreational fisheries sectors in their data collection, monitoring and management schemes. At least these sectors and fishing methods should be treated in their own right: Recreational angling/sportfishing, competition or tournament fishing, netting from boat, recreational long-line fishing, static nets, spear-fishing/diving and eventually ‘subsistence fishing’. [7]
Concerning the various fishing sectors impact on stocks of elasmobranchs and for comparison between the fisheries sectors figures on ‘mortality’ is preferred for ‘catches’ and ‘landings’. Any comparison must include socio-economic facts and considerations, the fisheries growth potential and how they comply with sustainable exploitation.
Field of action n° 2: Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.
Objective: Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
Field of action n° 3: Compile the necessary information to assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats, and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long term economic use.
Objective: Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
We just urge that the value of recreational angling for sharks and other elasmobranchs is taken fully into account in these harvesting strategies.
Field of action n° 4: Develop research projects to assess threats to shark populations and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long term economic use.
Objective: Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
We just urge that the value of recreational angling for sharks and other elasmobranchs is taken fully into account in these research projects and harvesting strategies.
Field of action n° 5: Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within and between States.
Objective: Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role in the ecosystem.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
We urge that the recreational angling sector is not overlooked or forgotten in consultations and the rest.
a)Concerning involving stakeholders in research: Further above we have showed that anglers are most often an important part of tagging programmes. It is not uncommon that dedicated anglers are willing to pay for go tagging a shark or a skate.
b)Concerning the proposal (Member States): ‘..to launch educational programs aimed specifically at educating fishermen and the public about shark and ray conservation programs and restrictions.’ We suggest including education about how to handle and release these fishes to raise the survival rate of not landed elasmobranchs.
Field of action n° 6: Adjust fishing effort to the available resources.
Objective: Ensure that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable and that their by-catches are properly regulated.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
Concerning the measures proposed at Community level ‘Limitation or prohibition of fishing activities in areas that are considered sensible to endangered stocks’ and ‘stronger limitation of fishing effort by relevant fisheries.’:
There are good reasons and strong arguments –environmental and economical- for making some elasmobranchs recreational angling species only and dedicate some areas to recreational angling only. It is proven that fish stock restoration plans and conservation schemes -like a MPA (Marine Protected Area)- don’t need to ban recreational angling.[8] This is not to say that recreational angling should not be managed in these areas or for these species.
Field of action n° 7: Adjust catches to the available resources.
Objective: Ensure that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable and that their by-catches are properly regulated.
(see our answer above; action n° 6)
Concerning the proposal to ‘prohibit all shark discards’: We urge that the Commission, Member States, ICES and RFMOs keep separate and look differently on ‘discards’ in commercial fisheries and the ‘releases’ from angling. We suggest that the mortality rate for discards (commercial fisheries) versus releases (angling) always is estimated before any banning measure is put in place for angling. In this regard we are a bit worried about this phrasing: ‘To conduct regular assessment in order to identify threats to shark populations and to determine the fishing mortality by stocks and, if possible, partitioned by fishery’. We urge the need to always assess recreational angling separated from other fisheries.
Field of action n° 8: Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2(g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed and encourage the use of dead sharks.
Objective: Ensure that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable and that their by-catches are properly regulated.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed except from reviewing the 5% rule. We see no need for that.
Field of action n° 9:
Identify and provide special attention in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks.
Objective: Ensure that directed fisheries for shark are sustainable and that their by-catches are properly regulated.
Overall we agree with the Commission’s possible options proposed.
We just urge that before implementingany fisheries closed areas and seasons that the possibilities for recreational angling to be exempted are fully investigated.
------
Response delivered by:
The European Anglers Alliance (EAA), and
The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (EFTTA)
EAA website:
EFTTA website:
Contact:
John Crudden, EAA Board Member,
Chairman of the EAASubgroupSea Angling
E-mail:
Jan Kappel, Secretary General
EAA and EFTTA Brussels office
Rue du Luxembourg 47
1050 Brussels
Tel: +32 (0)2 286 5956
Fax: +32 (0)2 286 5958
E-mail:
Annex:
Interview with an angler from the UKCornwall region; by Jan Kappel, secretary general of the EAA
The spurdog fisheries in Cornwall
In Cornwall there used to be a seasonal fishery for what we call the spurdog (spiny dogfish).The fishery wastraditionally carried out by long lines, not auto long lines but hand baited long lines with just a few hundred hooks. Substantial shoals of dogfish would migrate past the coast and one of the peculiarities with these fish was that if they were not feeding they could not be caught and this in effect contributed to relatively sustainable catches. The dog fish seem to feed very voraciously all at once and then switch off, presumably to digest what they have been feeding on.Before a lot of effort was expended, baiting up the hooks and shooting the long lines a feeler line (a hand line) would be used to ascertain if the fish were feeding or not. One often heard on the VHF radio skippers were marking vast quantities of dog fish on the sea bed but they could not catch any with the feeler line and consequently they knew it would be a waste of time shooting all their gear.
Then in the very late 70’s early 80’s as monofilament netting became more widely availablesomeone decided to shoot somenets on the dogfish and the results were spectacular. Here a few sentences from the local sea fisheries report for 1983:
"By the end of the first week of January, daily landings had peaked at 10,000 tonnes with merchants being kept so busy over the weekend that an auction was held on the Sunday"
"The effort rapidly doubled resulting in several days seeing total daily landings of more than 10,000 stone (60+ tonnes)"
Under the subheading of'long lining' the report reads:"This method cannot compete with the catching power of nets, particularly on dog fish shoals and when able, owners are changing to gill netting."
The angler recalls the vast piles of dogfish, mostly whelping females, filling the whole of the quay side at Newlyn. Thecommercial fisheries newspaper ‘FishingNews’, brought an article with picture:"some of the dogs landed at Newlyn on Wednesday morning.Half the fish were piled on the quay due to lack of boxes." The article reads:
‘A fleet of around 15 boats in the 30 – 38 foot range chased the dog fish as far as the Scilly Isles.They landed a total of 150 tonnes in just 4 days with multi mono nets. The best of the landings wasthe 37 foot Boy Gary returning with 1800 stone.During the week, the Boy Gary landed a total of 6000 stone(almost 40 tonnes) smashing the old port record for gross value at £17,500. The popularity of multi mono nets has increased the fleet to super efficiency levels but some fear that multi mono netters can do to the dogs what the pursers have done to pelagic stocks.’
That fishery lasted 18 months and then collapsed and has never recovered since.Looking at the statistics from the Sea Fish Industry Authority the total annual landings of dog fish in Newlyn are now considerably less then 100 tonnes for a full year.
A predatory and voracious Asian fish, the giant Snakehead, has been caught in a UK river for the first time, sparking fears of a deadly invasion. The fish is more terrifying than a piranha and will eat everything it comes across. It can “crawl” on land and survive out of water for up to four days. The fish was caught by Andy Alder while using a sprat as bait for pike on the River Witham near North Hykeham, Lincashire. It is feared the fish had been smuggled in for an aquarium and then illegally released. Snakeheads caused chaos when they were found in America in 2002, with snipers setting up on banksides to shoot them and entire lakes being poisoned to kill them.
EAA immediately called on the EU Commissioner for the Environment, MrStavros Dimas, to introduce a complete ban on imports into the EU. EAA had warned the then Commissioner, Ms Margot Wallström back in 2002 of the dangers this fish posed to the EU environment but the advice seems to have been ignored. Adult snakeheads can grow to 3ft long and weigh as much as 44lb.
1
[1] Some examples from Ireland: The Central Fisheries Board's Marine Sportfish Tagging Programme was initiated in 1970 by the Inland Fisheries Trust, who had responsibility for developing and promoting recreational sea angling. On their website they refer to two shark tagging programmes, Blue Shark and Irish Tope: ‘Results from the tagging of Blue Shark in Irish Waters’