South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

I write to offer comment by SWSFC to your Consultation (No. 1) dated 24th November 2005.
In doing so, please be guided by the attached background text (Item 7) and Draft minutes of the last Quarterly meeting of the full Committee held on the 9th December 2005. Whilst the meeting was a lively one, it covered a lot of ground in a very sensible fashion. I think the way the topic was considered and the nature of the output demonstrates one of the strengths of SFCs as a decision making body. The summary view I think reflects a very positive, pragmatic way forward on the balance of the range of difficult issues discussed.
Summary view :

Background
The SWSFC has a very long history in taking positive forward thinking measures to conserve finfish and shellfish within its district. It has regulated netting, not only in relation to the Salmon Act provisions, but also to support adequate effort control and protection of certain finfish species. This is inspite of the fact that SFCs are primarily constituted to manage and protect shellfish inside of 6nm rather that finfish which are mobile and more widely distributed.

The main history and protective measures are outlined in the background paper. It is sufficient to note that the South Wales area has in place a 37.5 cm MLS for bass (not 36cm) and 100mm minimum mesh size (elsewhere 90mm), and this has certain practical implications of which we have experience.

Enmeshing Nets
We believe that the size selectivity data for enmeshing nets used by CEFAS do not correspond to bass catches in this region. We are in the process of collecting data for CEFAS to ascertain the extent of this, but in summary:

CEFAS consider that nets of 107mm mesh optimise for 48-49cm bass or 109mm MMS for 45cm fish. Our limited data suggests that 110mm nets select for c 42cm fish and 100mm nets c 39cm.

The implication of this is very significant. It would mean that to select for a 45cm MLS bass the mesh size would need to increase to c 115-120mm with a consequent reduction in landings of other species of commercial value – especially cod and sole. This would have a highly significant negative financial impact upon local inshore fishermen. In the alternative 105mm mesh could be used, but the discarding of sub 45cm bass would be very substantial and wasteful.

We suggest that this matter be fully investigated before further action is taken and if we are correct that the alternative option of a 42cm size - 110mm enmeshing size be consulted upon. This we believe might be acceptable to local South Wales fishermen, provided other management measures are also looked at.

Of course this would not stop the rest of the UK taking the opportunity in the meanwhile to catch up with South Wales in implementing a 37.5cm bass size (possibly 39/40cm even) and 100mm MMS net and we recommend this action as a matter of course..

Trawlers
Another major point to make is that within the Bristol Channel significant catches of bass are made by trawlers. These vessels (currently) may be relatively few in number, but their catch can be large. Also the impact upon the fishery can be large for certain bass year classes/situations.

Others can perhaps better describe the catching circumstances; suffice to say that they can be inshore (<10m water) or 6nm offshore (on the sand banks and close to wrecks) and at any time of the year. (We have seen effort in February inshore off Gower, July off Carmarthen Bay and the summer in offshore Gower).

The substantive point is that these vessels use nets smaller than 100mm mesh (legally they can use 80mm) and that the size selectivity of this gear is poor when compared to that of enmeshing nets. The consequence of this is that a large by-catch of undersized bass can arise (even to the 36cm size depending on year class strength) and that survival of discards is believed to be low (even in shallow water, short- tow situations). Accordingly in trawling was not further considered, then an increase in bass MLS would increase further the number of bass discarded dead to the sea.

Accordingly this aspect requires a further consideration. It would be inequitable and somewhat perverse to single out measures which further limit anglers and netsmen without curtailing trawler effort. Moreover, it might persuade some to switch from netting to trawling or from netting for bass to tangle netting for rays (species under threat).

By-catch Allowances
The consultation refers to a possible 10% allowance to? smooth? in the effect of the changes. Whilst a commendable aim, we see difficulties with this. Firstly (as above) by-catch from trawls and enmeshing nets may well exceed 10%. Secondly the MLS regulations would prevent their sale or landing. So what would happen to them? If they were dumped back into the sea dead this would be wasteful. We suggest that a damaging ‘black market’ could develop.

Ultimately, any by-catch would be damaging and counter productive to the interest of the package. The aim must be to reduce the contact and incidental capture of bass below the MLS. We have some ideas as to how this could be done and look forward to discussing this a s part of the phase 2 consultation.

General comments
We would argue with some of the miscellaneous comment in the general consultation. For instance, it is difficult to identify the number of vessels that fish primarily for bass, or to say (para 4) that only those landing >10% bass will be affected. All vessels/persons catching bass will be affected; it’s a question of how much for how long? Gear restrictions also affect other important by-catch to the extent that this could be economically ‘make or break’.

It seems vogue to quote erroneous economic valuations and participation levels for the recreational angling sector. Whilst people are only just catching up with our views on the importance of sea angling to the economy (see SWSFC response to Nautilus 2000 for example), some of the figures appear to be purely speculative – 400,000 anglers who fish primarily for bass for example? Similarly the valuations of wider economic value for angling cannot easily be compared with estimates of first landing taken from the commercial fishery fleet. This is not only comparing ‘chalk with cheese’ but also relies upon estimates of the value of commercial landings that (although ‘official’) are known to be grossly inaccurate. [Footnote: Industry have previously been warned by SWSFC staff of the effect of this!]

Of a general note, we do not believe that the bass stock situation in North Wales is greatly any different to that in South Wales, although the baseline management rules under which fishing takes place of course are.

Similarly we cannot see that an increase in MLS size to 55cm could be at all viable at this time. We suggest one step at a time!

European Influence
Of particular concern is the question : For whom are bass being conserved? The offshore pelagic trawl fishery off the south west approaches is known to take significant quantities of large spawning bass (and dolphins), mainly by the French fleet.

We have laid out our detailed objections to this both to the EU Commission and DEFRA. We believe that the fishery ought to be closed down on both economic and biological grounds. It squanders a valuable resource. Whilst recognising the difficulties inherent within the CFP, the Minister ought to take decisive action regarding all vessels within the 6-12 mile zone now. Article 9 of the revised CFP (CR 2371/2002) provides the mechanism, although we are deeply disappointed that our lobbying (and that of ASFC) at the review of the CFP did not produce a more robust measure.

{Perhaps, tongue firmly in cheek, UK Government should prepare to establish an exclusive 12nm fishery zone around the UK, for only then (in the absence of being able to apply and police common sense protection rules to all vessels in EU and UK 6 – 12nm waters) will we have an opportunity for any decent finfish stocks? Bass and ray management epitomise these difficulties. UK Government must begin to stand up and be counted and stop blaming others for problems for which they partly hold the solution.}

CEFAS scientists say (believe) that only 10% of the West coast bass are caught within the offshore south-west fishery, therefore the benefits of the proposed measures will largely accrue to local fishermen. That might be correct, but should not more work go into this before going too far with bass MLS increases? Where do the other 90% go to? What percentage gains do accrue to inshore anglers and netsmen?

Cost Analysis
Accordingly the Competition Assessment at paras 33 and 34 is flawed. Negative competition arises between various sectors (trawl, net, angler). A negative effect will arise from decreased catch of other commercial species associated with any mesh size increase. The effect of the French pelagic trawl fishery on the livelihoods of UK inshore fishermen has not been assessed. Just what would be the benefits to UK fleets of restraining them e.g. via an annual closed season? In fact, it would be a show of positive support for UK industry and anglers if the Minister were to strongly lobby the EU for an increase in bass MLS from 36cm eg. to attempt 40cm before putting UK fishermen to disadvantage.

Similarly, how robust is the market demand for bass in order to support the economic valuations given. If bass are caught later they will be bigger. But if more tonnage hits the market and the price drops, it is not inconceivable that fishermen will find that they are worse off.

Legislation
The overview report to Committee details some of the legislative provisions required. Suffice to say, these are not without some difficulty of implementation at this time.

Ironically, whilst the consultation makes no mention of SFC byelaw control these offer perhaps the best solution to the various problems. Or rather, they certainly would do so, had successive governments listened to SFCs’ requests for a modernisation of byelaw powers which date back to 1888! With modern powers and reasonable resources then appropriate, effective and wholistic management of our inshore zone for the benefit of all participants becomes a distinct possibility.

Further management options (Consultation No. 2)
Finally, I would end by saying that as the matter is a complex one, we would welcome discussion on a range of further management options. These include bag limits, netting control areas, control of trawling, closed season and revision of bass nursery areas.
Summary view :

We remain available to further discuss the introduction and enforcement of appropriate bass MLS / Minimum Mesh Sizes and a range of other restrictions as outlined.
Yours sincerely

P J COATES
Director
Encs: Background paper – Item 7
Extract of the Un-adopted minutes of the 9th Dec 2005 Quarterly meeting of the Full Committee.

1. Attached is a WAG consultation on increasing the minimum landing size (MLS) for bass from 36 cm to 45 cm. It is promoted alongside a similar consultation by DEFRA for England.

Gear (net size) restrictions are proposed as part of this package because if the MLS is increased only and fishermen continue with established practice, then discarding will increase. If discards have poor survival then this would lead to wastage.

This proposal is to increase the bass minimum size to 45 cm whilst at the same time establishing a minimum mesh size of enmeshing nets of 105mm. (CEFAS quote range 105-110mm (modal length of 107-109mm)).

SWSFC has been in the forefront of bass conservation, having taken the following actions:

w Set a minimum mesh size of 100 mm for enmeshing nets since the 1980s (UK = 90 mm).

w Made a minimum bass size byelaw in 1997 of 37.5cm, i.e. above the National and EU bass MLS of 36cm. The original consultation proposal was for a 42 cm MLS in keeping with size of first spawning of female bass.

w Established Bass Nursery Areas through the more conservative, more enforceable ‘No fishing for sea fish from a boat’, as opposed to the National ‘no fishing for bass from a boat’ legislation.

w Lobbied CEFAS/DEFRA and EU for more effective protection of bass broodstock through the further control of pelagic pair trawlers in the 6-12nm and offshore areas, as well as the establishment of a closed season.

w Informed Government (through its response to the WO Nautilus consultation) of the wider benefits of having a larger MLS for bass and drawing attention to the economic value of sea angling to the Welsh economy.

To an extent, an increase in the MLS of bass is a win-win situation as it produces more, larger (and therefore more valuable) bass which additionally will on average have spawned more frequently.

w Whilst sea anglers might like more bass > 5kg, commercial fishermen would prefer more bass not necessarily larger bass, say > 2kg. Indeed, the market for plate sized bass has been met in recent years from aquaculture sources. Anglers and commercial operators only to a point agree.

w Bass stocks are not currently under pressure – thought largely due to favourable (mild) winters that enhance spawning success and survival of juveniles. The 2002 spawning is though to be the largest on record, despite the spawning stock being one of the smallest due to Overfishing.

{Postscript : CEFAS (Fishing News- Dec) indicate that spawning stocks are highest for 20 years. The only explanation of this must be the presence of large numbers of small fish as the fishing mortality on large fish must be very high and numbers of large fish (ie > 4kg ) very low}

The current interest in bass is therefore more about providing a strategy to support the wishes of sea anglers than it is about stock conservation or the welfare of commercial fishermen.

w Bass are a nomadic species. They move within the inshore areas in years 0-4/6 and increasingly offshore into adulthood (aged 25). Spawning aggregations of mixed stocks have been targeted for the last 10 years well offshore (> 6 miles and often > 12 miles). In these areas other European fleets (French, Belgian) take the bulk of the catch.

In 1996 when SWSFC consulted on an increase in MLS under byelaw, local fishermen legitimately asked the question – ‘Who will gain the benefits of our (local) restraint?’ The answer is everyone, including British Nationals who fish on inshore migration routes as well as offshore areas frequented by Europeans.

This was the particular position that scuppered the SWSFC bass MLS proposal and ended up with a compromise 37.5cm in keeping with our Cornish neighbours.

Whilst the extent of fishery escapement, and extent of spawning benefits and economic benefits of releasing larger bass are all arguable, what is inescapable is that inshore commercial fishermen through MLS, increased net size and bass nursery areas are being asked to support limits in order to fill the plates and line the pockets of others!

The above applies to a greater or lesser extent to all fishery management measures designed to limit the taking of finfish and in part explains why most stocks (except ironically bass) are in such a poor state!

Whilst the actual details of cost and benefit (and apportionment of this) are very difficult to calculate the principles of a larger MLS are sound. Had it not been for recent mild winters then through our mismanagement of bass we might otherwise have been looking at a very poor stock situation.

i) Local fishermen have for many years questioned the CEFAS size – (fixed/drift) net selectivity data. SWSFC 100mm nets, they say, select for 36 – 40 cm fish, whereas CEFAS data shows such for 90mm nets (some 10mm smaller). (See graph)

Figure Length distribution of bass caught in 90 mm and 10 mm mesh gill nets in 2002 – 2004 (CEFAS – Bridlington Study 2002/04

Currently CEFAS suggest that a 105mm mesh will select for 45cm bass, but recent local data suggests that even 110mm net selects for 42cm fish, and an increase to 115mm would be necessary. i.e. modal bass size.

Mesh size	CEFAS	SWSFC view
90mm	37cm	-
100mm	42cm	39 cm
105mm	45cm	-
110mm	c 47 cm	42 cm
115mm	?	? 45 cm

The differences probably arise because local fishermen rig nets slacker (hanging coefficient of x 0.5). There are slight differences between the shape of male and female fish, but despite this the range of fish caught (size selectivity for bass) is surprisingly narrow.

Such circumstances may appear slight, but can make a huge difference to the catch (and therefore viability) of a commercial netsman in that they affect not only the catch of bass, but also the catch of other species of high economic value such as sole and cod.

CEFAS are aware of our concerns and are agreeable to looking further into the matter, and a data sheet is in preparation for them.

ii) Another concern relates to the treatment of trawlers. Landings of bass by trawlers working the Bristol Channel have been very considerable in recent years. Catches can be of slightly larger fish offshore in the summer, or of smaller fish tight to beaches from February to August.

Trawlers use 80mm braided mesh, and as the mesh is pulled taught by the forward movement of the vessel, it has a much lower selectivity than would drift/fixed (enmeshing) nets.

As a consequence trawlers could (and do) catch bass as small as 20 cm. Such fish are too small to be legally landed and must, in law, be discarded. Unfortunately even with shorter, shallow water tows, much of this discarded catch must die due to crushing and scale loss. Any larger MLS will only serve to increase discarding.

Any management strategy must realistically look at all the above issues identified in the preceding paragraphs.

For any fishery management policy to be successful it must satisfy a number of interrelated criteria. i.e. be:

To the contrary. A bad law is one that is complicated, difficult to understand, inequitable, poorly accepted and therefore gives rise to abuse. Unfortunately the very difficult issues surrounding the management of mixed fleets, mixed fin-fish and dissimilar catching methods lends itself to bad laws, poor acceptance and hence stock mismanagement that all have come to understand why stocks have fallen so much.

The proposals therefore have to be considered and tested against the above principles.

The proposals are for a MLS of 45cm and MMS of enmeshing nets of c 105mm put in place via Statutory Instrument (SI) under the 1967 Sea Fish Conservation Act (SFCA).

A look at that legislation shows that it has a number of limitations because the Act is now very much aligned to the control of fishing from registered fishing vessels. In order to be fair and equitable the proposals ought to apply to all fishing methods from the boat and shore.

w Sec 1(1) – MLS for fish landed. There is no definition of landed and how it might apply to different fishing circumstances e.g. boat, angler on the shore or shore net.

However, officers believe that its effect with regard to fish taken by all boats is clear, and that uncertainties regarding shore fishing can be clarified through the addition within the SI of the phrase ‘fish below the prescribed size must be returned to the sea forthwith (see Sec 5(6)) or immediately (EC 850/98). Deninimus defences would need to apply. Certainly action could then be taken and/or fish transported across the foreshore even before it might be argued they have not yet fully left the fishery or been landed (vis a vis High Water Mark).

The landing prohibition would prevent any landing of fish taken as a by-catch (10% - suggested in the Consultation document).

Sec 6 of the SFIA 1967 also prohibits the landing of sea fish although seemingly to cover such situations as imports. This might produce an additional option for lawyers, and would introduce possible offences for trans-shipment

w Sec 1(2) only applies to the sale etc of fish below MLS. This is enforceable on land. It is noteworthy since it would prevent the sale of fish taken as a by-catch (10% - suggested in the Consultation document).

w Sec 1(3) prevents the carriage of fish below the MLS, however only appears to apply to registered fishery vessels, not pleasure vessels or on the shore. For the latter purposes Sec 1(1) offences would need to be applied. This is not ideal, and the aim must have effective powers for all fishery methods.

EC CR850/98 provides a useful example, “prohibiting retention onboard, transshipment, landing, transportation, storage, sale, display for sale, offer for sale and fish below MLS shall be returned IMMEDIATELY to the sea”.

w Sec 2 reinforces Sec 1(2) by broadening the offence to ‘possession’ during any part of the business.

Limitations regarding the enforcement of gear restrictions (minimum mesh sizes (MMS) of enmeshing nets) include:

w Sec 3 relates to the carriage of gear only onboard registered fishing vessels (i.e. no net control on private boats).

w Sec 5 provides a possible solution for the Welsh Minister by application to an area (Wales) and time (all year) that it would be possible to prohibit the fishing for any sea fish using enmeshing nets below specified (105mm) size. However, whilst this section can be applied to any fishing boat it cannot apply to shore nets.

SWSFC already has in place a suite of byelaws derived under the 1966 Sea Fisheries Regulation Act (SFRA). However, its powers only apply to the 6nm Fishery District (whereas SIs can cover territorial waters) and prevent ‘any method of fishing for sea fish’ or the ‘fishing for or taking of sea fish’ by any person.

On the plus side the powers are not limited by whether the fish is taken from the shore or by boat, or by type of boat. On the downside, there are no carriage, landing or possession offences so it is incumbent on SFC Fishery Officers to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that that person took those fish from within the 6nm waters. SFCs have lobbied Government for better powers for over a decade and hope that the Marine Bill will provide these in order that we might do our job effectively.

– The Consultation text makes reference to the application of an SI by DEFRA and NAW as fisheries management is now a largely devolved function. It seems that the definition of English and Welsh vessels is under some debate. i.e. Whether it be vessels fishing in English or Welsh waters (or carriage of fish over land), Port of Registration, (so we have English Registered boats based and fishing in Wales), or Port of Administration (e.g. Milford). Such nuances of devolution will have practical implications for other areas of fishery management and enforcement as well.

Suffice to say, that in order that fishery management be practical and simple, it might be preferable that a commonality of approach be applied across England and Wales (land and waters). This would prevent any potential inequities arising e.g. English registered boats working Welsh waters with a Welsh administrative base fishing a different bass size/gear size to neighbouring Welsh vessels!

The implication is that whereas a Welsh consultation to reflect Welsh circumstances might genuinely give rise to a unique Welsh solution; this might not be practical.

The outcome of possible regulations arising from the first consultation might not be straightforward.

It appears that new fishery management powers (either for SFC, WAG, or successor organisations) would assist the process and full decision might usefully await the outcome of the Marine Bill. Similarly, the mooted 2^nd Consultation and its output might have a bearing on how the MLS/MMS issue is tackled.

Notwithstanding the above, then a combination of SI powers for MLS/Minimum Mesh size and SFC byelaw powers could make a good ‘fist’ of a decision as outlined above. A 39cm/40cm MLS/100mm mesh size might make a good National compromise for a few years until the 2^nd Consultation is completed. This would ‘level the playing field’ with measures already in place in South Wales.

That members consider the Consultation, this overview document and a draft summary response to WAG for adoption as SWSFC response – with or without amendment.

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, HELD AT PEMBROKESHIRE COAST NATIONAL PARKS OFFICES, LLANION PARK, PEMBROKE ON FRIDAY 9^th DECEMBER 2005, COMMENCING AT 14.05 HOURS

Cllr Thomas – was related to a commercial fisherman, and now held a dispensation to speak (not vote) on cockle matters.

The Director clarified to fishery members that, in his view, the recent letter from the Minister purporting to give them a dispensation to speak and vote had no validity since the Local Government Act 2000. WAG had not yet responded to his request for clarification, made in August.

The Director provided the backdrop to the consultation. He said that a recent CEFAS article suggested that spawning biomass was good – contrary to his assertion in the report and must be as a consequence of large numbers of sub 2kg fish overwhelming the shortage of >2kg fish assumed in his report. Pre and post 1980’s stock structure would bear further close examination.

R Phillips supported the concept that all (shell) fish should be allowed to spawn once and therefore a 42cm bass size based on Committee’s previous discussion in 1995-97.

That discarding of dead fish would be an issue unless capture size was aligned to method, that gill nets were extremely size selective for bass; that some trawlers (9 of 12 local boats) towed too slowly to make big bass catches, but that 3/12 were powerful and used high lift nets to successfully target bass; that trawlers and netsmen relied greatly upon sole and that net size increases could, a) put them out of business, b) cause diversification pressure with possible negative consequences (eg. for ray); that bass stocks were good and this was a measure which discriminated against both methods and UK in favour of EU fishermen; that the economic figures upon which the proposals were based were knowingly spurious; that the black economy issues ought to be tackled before addressing stock apportionment to a particular sector (anglers); that gill nets being size selective, were not the main cause of a decline in large bass; that small boats were greatly constrained by the weather, but large offshore boats (unfettered by the proposal) were not; that a minimum mesh size provision on its own might be sufficient so as to minimise discarding waste and that overall the measure was not ‘win-win’ as the Director had suggested.

The Director said that the extent of ‘win-win’ was very dependant upon assumptions of relative survival, growth, spawning escapement, juvenile production and recruitment, who would make the catches and what prices applied when landings of larger fish were likely greater. These were complex interacting issues not for debate here, however he stood by that view.

He said that fishery member Scott Wharton could not be in attendance today due, ironically, to the launch of his new vessel. He had a basis as owner of one of the larger more powerful boats mentioned above and would be submitting his own views to the Minister. He had not been able to respond to the Director’s request for views today, but in a recent article in Fishing News had said that, from the current catch composition of bass (ie. mainly <45cm in size) then his vessels risked becoming economically unviable.

L Lammas said that sea anglers and commercial fishermen were generally ‘at one’ on most of the above issues. He referred to the Irish experience in promoting bass conservation for anglers on economic grounds and fish bag limits within this. His personal view was that the bass MLS should not increase to 45cm until measures such as sensible bag limits (eg. 5-6 fish / person / day) and Buyers and Sellers came in to address the black-economy issues. There appeared to be general consensus amongst members for this view. He said that, in reality, the state of the stock was unknown, as were the interactions between different bass (sub) stocks. There may be scope in setting quotas to limit trawler effort and to minimise the negative effect of discarding.

D Bray agreed with most that I Wisby had said. He said that local trawlers had adapted to take bass by increasing vessel power, and using larger high lift nets. He suggested that the Committee could look at additional measures such as limiting trawler net size and mandatory use of square mesh panels.

The Director said that some of the Swansea trawler fleet had already complained about the use of the larger vessels and had requested that the Committee look at trawl net dimensions, limits and further vessel capacity restrictions introduced in 2001. Square mesh panels would be difficult to consider as research would be necessary by someone like Sea Fish Industry Authority to identify their best size and location following bass behaviour studies. To date the work was essentially on cod, whiting and haddock.

J Lancaster said that there was a lot of truth in what I Wisby had said. Scientists agreed that there were high numbers of fish presently and the ‘urgency’ for an increase in MLS promoted by anglers at this time was to preserve the big 2002 year class and use this to ‘buffer’ the economic impact of an increasing size on the industry. He debated with I Wisby the extent to which enmeshing nets would catch bigger bass outside the peak selectivity range. Clearly some big bass would be caught in smaller meshed nets, the fact that few were indicated they were not there. I Wisby said that he was increasingly surprised they were there as indicated in his catches over >10 years on rod and line. The Director said this just served to prove how little we know about where big bass live and move and how much of the local population is actually being taken by offshore pair trawlers. I Wisby said, and it was agreed, that small bass (ie. <6 years old < 45cm) lived inshore and any measures would effect inshore fishermen. This proposal would therefore disproportionately affect them, as did Bass Nursery Areas.

D Bray additionally made the point that the Scottish pair trawlers took bass as well as the French and Belgians and yet had no Bass Nursery Areas!

I Wisby said that one key point not yet considered was that the current legislation, whether under byelaw or (to some debate) under Statutory Instrument (SI), could not deliver effectively what was being proposed. It therefore made sense not to progress measures until it did.

B Williams took issue with I Wisby on the matter of relative importance of anglers’ catch of bass compared to commercial take. There would be no resolution of this because there was no firm evidence of landings by either group and (as agreed earlier) the figures quoted by each of each other were known to be inaccurate and used selectively to gain effect.

The Chair said that, after nearly an hour of debate, she had to bring discussion on the item to a close, and she asked the Director to sum up. She said that as several members had expressed a direct pecuniary interest, they would not be allowed to vote. Other members obviously had a direct non-pecuniary interest. The subject of Dispensations being exceedingly murky, she had allowed all members to fully participate in the debate but this could not be extended to having a vote. She asked whether the Director could find any common ground.

The Director said that a number of common points arose. It was agreed that CEFAS had to look more closely at the selectively of local enmeshing nets in practice and align this to bass MLS, by-catch and economic issues. But the indications were that a 42cm MLS and 110 mm mesh size might be acceptable in certain circumstances and ought to be further consulted upon.

A second consultation was promised and provided the opportunity to further comment on trawler activity, bag limits / buyers and sellers, and indeed the use of nets for pleasure (whether set by boat or from the shore).

Members made the general comment that they would support the concept that such personal netting be stopped, and that all (shell) fish should be allowed to spawn once on average before capture. G Hyndman raised the option of phasing in of sizes and it was agreed that this too could be part of the second consultation.

R Phillips said that fish body market tagging (like salmon) might bolster enforcement but I Wisby said the difficulty was in making it apply to imported fish.

In summing up, the following position was adopted without dissent or vote as being that of the SWSFC:

a) That the concept that MLS for all species of (shell) fish ought to reflect the fact that, on average, they should be allowed to spawn at least once. For bass this equated to around 42cm size for females. This re-asserted the Committee’s previous position made in 1995/96.

b) That, subject to further consideration of a whole range of interrelated issues, and as part of a package, then a 42cm MLS / 110 mm mesh size might be appropriate locally. In doing so it was recognised that this built upon the Committee’s already proactive action on bass MLS of 37.5 cm, 100 MMS and gear / boat restrictions. It was recognised that other areas in England and Wales would have different circumstances applying.

c) That (subject to final confirmation of mesh size selectivity of enmeshing nets) an increase in local size of bass from 37.5 to 39/40cm in keeping with the continuation of use of 100mm MMS nets had merit.

d) That, as continuously reported by this Committee for over 10 years, the presiding fishery legislation was full of holes and required amendment with reference to carriage, possession, landing and transhipment powers in particular. Until that was done it was acknowledged that to make changes to laws which were difficult to enforce, and were therefore bad laws, would be a retrograde step.

e) To welcome contributing to a further consultation on wider measures including bag limits, bass quotas, dealer licensing (buyers and sellers), personal netting, trawling activity and trawl net design as well as MLS / MMS of enmeshing nets. But to send a message to government that such discussions were likely to be less than successful if it had not managed to make some considerable progress on:

i) Getting the EU to take more positive action in conserving bass (eg. closed season, ban pair trawling and for increased EU MLS) so as to either avoid, or definitively clarify the mill-stone ‘who are we conserving these bass for?’, and

ii) That the fishery management authorities have the capacity to effectively enforce such measures through the implementation of sound legislation and the necessary resources to do so. Such will enable the courts to take decisions regarding the inevitable transgression of any future legislation – whether by trawler, netsmen or angler – personal or commercial.

f) In conclusion: To not support any increase beyond 42cm. To not support any increase beyond 40cm / 100mm MMS without securing changes to fisheries legislations and EU conservation action. But after securing the above, and considering other issues as will be raised in the second consultation, that a move to 42cm / 110mm mesh size might be supported under certain conditions.