This is a presentation written and produced
for an audience of sea anglers.
Many
species of Ray have dramatically declined in number over the last thirty years
or so in South Wales and elsewhere in the UK. Numbers, average sizes and hence biomass have fallen with economic
implication. Some larger species such as
thornback ray have been more adversely affected than some smaller species. The challenge is how to ensure effective
conservation of this slow growing and vulnerable group of species whilst at the
same time being mindful to the effects of such measures on a range of other
fishing operations, and hence fishermen’s livelihoods.
Fisheries
management in South Wales is placed in the context of National and European
control measures and fishing activity.
It is
concluded that no single conservation measure is likely to succeed. Subject to further research, a combination of
minimum sizes, maximum sizes, limits on fishing effort (trawlers in
particular), and over a wide coastal band, will likely provide improvements for
most species. However, the very large
span in sizes between the smallest ray (spotted ray) and the largest (common skate) means that even with
heavy compromises probably the largest species will still decline, whilst the
smallest species will be over conserved.
This has
political ramifications as various interest groups e.g. trawlers, netters,
anglers, conservationists, all with their own aspirations, seek to attain their
goal. Ironically the goal is largely
the same for each group - plenty of fish of a range of sizes for ever
more. However, the difficulty, some
would say impossibility, of achieving that goal without adversely impacting
upon any particular interest group even in the short term, is what causes the
political dilemma and dtracts from taking the necessary conservation action.
1.
Background
The ray family comprises a
number of species which are widely distributed.
They have been caught for many
years both as a target and by catch within commercial fisheries, but also as a
target for recreational angling.
The group have common
characteristics. They are relatively
long lived, late maturing, produce few well developed offspring and are
particularly vulnerable to capture by commercial fishing operations from an
early age.
Data will be presented to
illustrate their decline locally through fishing activity. The main methods have historically been
trawling (otter and beam), angling and, since the 1980s, bottom set tangle
netting. The reduced landings arise from
both a reduction in numbers of fish and reduction in average size. Such changes are neither in the interest of
the commercial fishery nor the recreational fishery. Furthermore, conservation groups have
developed an interest in recent years.
2.
Fisheries Management
Since 1970 fisheries
management in the UK has been a responsibility of the EU Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP). This is devolved in many
areas to member states. In the UK,
National control falls upon the government - In England and Wales MAFF, Sea
Fisheries Committees (SFC) and for migratory fish also involves the Environment
Agency (EA). The devolved governments
are yet to stake a claim, but policy in Scotland is rapidly evolving. The SFCs and EA have responsibility to six
nautical miles from the coast, MAFF from 0-200m territorial limits. Most fishing activity for rays takes place on
the west coast within 0-20 miles.
Under the CFP both UK and
foreign vessels (with historical rights) can fish in the 6-12 mile limit. Fishing within the 6 mile coastal belt is
solely of vessels of that member state.
The CFP allows member states
to set fish conservation regulations which apply to the vessels of that state,
but only if they have a higher conservation value than EU law. CFP is currently undergoing a 10 year review
and SFCs and others are lobbying most strongly for a ‘one rule for all’ within
12 miles regardless of Nationality.
Whilst SFCs were established
primarily in the late 1800s to manage shellfish stocks (bivalves and
crustaceans), the importance of coastal waters as nursery grounds and a focus
for a wider range of fishing activity, has led several SFCs to introduce
byelaws to conserve also fin fish. The
wide ranging membership of SFCs who include anglers, Environment Agency
representative, conservation interests and representatives of the wider fishing
industry has encouraged this. Key fin
fish of wider interest to SFCs in the UK have been bass, and rays.
From the above summary, it can
be argued that the decline in ray (and many other species) has arisen from the
failure of the CFP and/or member states to adequately address stock
conservation. Effective management could
produce more fish, of higher average size and therefore value. It is therefore legitimate that SFCs seek the
means to try and stem this decline for the benefit of coastal communities and
others - including anglers.
This raises the question on
how might fish stocks generally be better managed? The management of the ray group presents
particular challenges which are outlined below. If the solutions were easy, then presumably stocks would be more healthy
than they currently are.
3.
Management Tools
3.1
National/European
(CFP) - The main tools are restriction of vessel number (via licensing) and
capacity (length and horsepower). For
the most important stocks, quotas are imposed by region and country and a
‘Total Allowable Catch’ (TAC) set according to scientific assessment of
stocks. Until recently rays were not
considered of sufficient importance to set TACs. However for 2001 a TAC of 4848 tonnes has
been set for areas II(a) and IV - 64% of which is allocated to UK vessels. No other protection has been afforded to ray
species.
3.2
Local
(Sea Fisheries Committees) by way of local byelaws. These prevent ‘the fishing for or taking or
fish’ and can limit ‘the method of fishing’. The legislation is antiquated and does not meet the needs of modern
society. Enforcement loopholes are
apparent. SFCs have long requested of
MAFF new fisheries or coastal acts. As a consequence much of fisheries
enforcement in the UK is a confidence trick - the 90% will comply with sensible
rules provided there is a risk of prosecution and reasonable penalties to deter
offenders. However, a fine line
frequently exists between confidence and lawlessness. Coastal and seagoing SFC Fishery Officers
police the sea area, potentially 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee would
normally have a staff of 13 (currently we have 9) to cover the 4685 km2 sea and 683 km coastline between Cardiff and Cardigan. Its levy to local authorities has recently
been cut by c 30% at their request, to levels seen ten years ago, and despite
new conservation responsibilities and demands placed upon it by a new more
environmentally aware society.
3.3
SFC
byelaws fall mainly into the following categories:-
a)
Limitation of vessel size.
b)
Limitation of gear design or efficiency.
c)
Stipulation of minimum ‘landing’ size. The theory being that all species should be
allowed to spawn at least once before capture in order to propagate future
stocks.
d)
Other measures to reduce fishing effort for a
reason. e.g. Closed areas, seasons, limitation of
access. These are more often used on
intertidal fisheries e.g. cockles/mussels, but are increasingly under
investigation in a wider context. The
MCS promotion of ‘No Take Zones’ being a recent example.
4. Action Taken by South
Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
4.1
A
full review of byelaws commenced in 1996 and was implemented in 1998. The main purpose of which was to consider
their extension to the new (October 1993) six mile SFC Districts, to
standardise byelaws as far as is reasonable with other SFCs (particularly
neighbouring districts so as to aid enforcement and consistency), and to adjust
each byelaw in line with environmental responsibilities given to SFCs by legislation in 1992 and 1995.
After due discussion, advertisement and consideration of responses the
Committee introduced the following ray minimum size measure:-
- confirmed 4/12/97
No person shall take or otherwise remove from a fishery within any part
of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee District any skate or ray that
measures less than 40 centimetres between the extreme tips of the wings or any
wing which measures less than 20 centimetres on its maximum dimension and which
is detached from the body. Skate and ray
below this size shall be returned immediately to the sea at a position as
nearby as is possible from where they were taken.
Thirty-six months following the date the confirmation of this byelaw
[i.e. 4/12/2000] the aforementioned 40 centimetres minimum size shall become 45
centimetres and the aforementioned 20 centimetres minimum size shall become 22
centimetres.
Footnote: It has been necessary to stipulate both a
whole (wing tip to wing tip) size as well as a parts size because it is common
practice in some areas to detach wings at sea, and discard the carcass
(banjo). A failure to stipulate a parts
size would result in immature fish being winged to circumvent the regulations.
4.2 The rationale was as follows:-
(a)
Minimum sizes (MLS) are the cornerstone of
fisheries management. At low levels of
fishing effort, sufficient fish will escape capture and still spawn rendering
less need for minimum sizes. At higher
levels of fishing effort (such as we have around the UK) there is an absolute
need for a minimum size at or around size of first sexual maturity, or to find
an alternative method to reduce fishing effort.
(b)
Minimum sizes are well understood, reasonably
easy to enforce, and accepted by catchers. For the most common species (thornback ray), the species is
scientifically well studied.
(c)
Other SFCs already had in place a size, or were
considering one. Cumbria SFC (45cm, 22cm
part), North Western & North Wales (considering), Southern (40 cm, 20 cm
part), Kent & Essex (40 cm, 20 cm part).
(d)
Fish below the MLS can be returned alive -
particularly if taken by anglers. Bottom
set nets tend to be size selective, and dedicated nets take few small ray, but
are set for several days at a time. Trawl gear is largely unselective to ray. The short tows used on inshore grounds
facilitate better fish survival than tows from larger offshore vessels in
deeper waters.
(e)
Trawler interests in South Wales are (sadly) a
smaller, minority group.
(f)
To support the role of the Sea Fishery Committee
in the conservation of fish stocks for the benefit of all.
4.3 Various
concerns/objections were raised at the time by the industry including:-
a) Byelaws for fish/shellfish sizes are
discriminatory as vessels of UK and foreign (French and Belgium) nationality
would continue to fish small ray outside ( > 6 nmiles) of the SWSFC district thus benefiting from local fishermen’s
restraint.
Response: The conservation measure is lawful and
reasonable. All parties need to campaign
for appropriate National/EU legislation to close the 6 - 12 mile loophole. MAFF should consider the need for minimum
sizes in the 6 - 12 mile band under National legislation and applied to UK
vessels and should lobby the EU for measures to be applied to ALL
vessels.. The extent to which rays would
be ‘lost’ offshore depends upon migration movement and catch rate. What information that does exist suggests
long shore movements and the benefits arising from the byelaw would generate
mainly locally with some overspill of mainly adult fish to other areas.
b) The need for cross country conservation
measures where possible for mobile fish.
Response: Agreed. This measure will hopefully ‘kick start’ further action. The fact that government has the powers to
set a national size for UK vessels but has not used them, is perhaps indicative
of the lack of political will or priority towards fish species such as rays and
a manifestation of why fish stocks world-wide are largely in decline. It is essential that the CFP review
addresses the need for common rules for all parties inside 12 mile waters which
would then open up opportunities for the introduction of National
controls. At times large quantities of
ray are taken by vessels fishing 6-12 miles offshore.
c) The measure has a greater impact upon
trawlers.
Response: Yes, because they take small ray. To what extent should they be allowed to
deprive others of a right to reasonable fish stocks? A balance must be struck.
d) Trawling discards largely die.
Response: Ray, of all species, are quite robust. Short tows in inshore waters provide for
higher survival. Unfortunately small ray
are more fragile than larger ray, and this has management implications.
e) The byelaw is non species specific, and
therefore has differential effect.
Response: Agreed. Rays are difficult to identify. Large differences in morphology appear
between sexes, and adults/juveniles in the same sex. Species differences can be small e.g.
juvenile blonde ray v adult spotted ray. Hybridisation may occur. In
inshore waters (0-6 mile) most fish in South Wales will be thornback ray or
spotted ray. Blonde ray and small eyed
ray occur according to seabed type and depth. Cuckoo ray appear mainly in deeper water offshore.
The proposed byelaw (40 cm becoming 45 cm
wing tip) under-conserves thornback (maturity c 55 cm), and especially blonde
and common skate. It appears about right
for small eyed ray. It provides a higher degree of protection for spotted and
cuckoo ray.
The measure is intended to be a practical
compromise consistent with species abundance and catch composition in local
waters.
f) That the introduction of 45 cm size from
scratch was too big a jump.
Response: Acknowledged. Accordingly the size introduced on 4/12/97
was 40 cm wing tip to wing tip, becoming 45 cm three years later.
5.
Postscript
Reactions have been mixed, but are typical.
Some commercial fishermen have protested
vigorously, including calls for local authorities to discontinue funding the
SFC. As has been the case for other
byelaws, a gradual acceptance has taken place, along with some measure of
improvement to the fishery. It is still
too early to ascribe the benefits to the introduced ray conservation measures,
but it has certainly been the case for measures on lobsters and whelks both of
which were also subject to strong objection at the time.
Despite much publicity, the event has
largely passed the angling fraternity by. That is also quite typical!
A couple of trawlers have been apprehended
with catches of small ray. Both were
offered official warnings. One decided
to contest the case and lost in Magistrates Court, and subsequently upon appeal
at Crown Court and High Court. Expressed
simply, his case, which was not upheld, was:-
(i)
Discrimination.
(ii)
Byelaws
made contrary to powers in EU law.
(iii)
Unreasonableness: Byelaw not species specific and not
necessary.
(iv)
Irrationality. By cutting the wing size so as to extend the
wing into the snout it is possible to increase the maximum part length. This rendered a mismatch between part size
and whole fish. i.e. By chopping up fish
at sea, whole fish below 45 cm wing size could now meet the 22 cm part size and
could therefore be retained.
This apparent loophole (not previously discovered by the two SFCs from
whom SWSFC copied long standing byelaws) is probably the strongest reason why
the ray size has been thus far accepted by fishermen (trawlers).
The SWSFC was sympathetic to the plaintiffs claim, but his legal action
over several years, rather limited the Committee's ability to respond. Furthermore, the provision of an adequate
response and replacement byelaw is difficult.
A joint Welsh Working Group has been established to look at all aspects of
ray management, on which the following speaker will provide more
information. It is intended that this
expert panel advise on the most practical and effective conservation and management
alternatives.
6.Range of Future Management
Options Under Consideration.
6.1 Without prejudice to the findings of the Working Group, it would
appear that the following have merit:-
(i)
Minimum and/or maximum sizes. The latter could include the protection of
large female fish. Consultation with
anglers, who would have to return the large fish they caught, could centre upon
catch and release following measurement. Length/weight tables can be constructed such as have been used for tope
and blue shark. One aspect that
deserves further scrutiny is the scope for making sizes more species specific?
(ii)
Limitation of vessel fishing effort:-
a) Vessel Size.
b)
Gear controls e.g. Area limitation of trawling which is a technique which shows poor
selection, but to allow alternative methods such as angling and netting.
c)
Closed areas. }
To protect juveniles? To protect
spawning females?
d)
Closed seasons }
e)
Quota.
f)
Restricted licence.
It is unlikely that any single measure
would adequately protect ray populations around the UK. Conservation of the not-so-common skate being
a particular problem and population restoration may not be achievable.
It is important to remember that any
measure must be enforceable within available legislative powers and policing
resources. The most successful fishery
management measures will be those with the greatest participant support and
understanding.
Further information is required on ray
biology especially on the locations and
seasonality of adult spawning areas, and juvenile holding areas - if they
exist. This is one of the aims of the
Joint Working Group.
6.2 In the absence of such information, which will take some while to
assimilate, my own personal views are that ray conservation in the SWSFC
area can be forwarded by:-
(1)
Extending
SFC districts, or equivalent, to 12 miles.
(2)
Applying
rules to all vessels within this area and providing for the
effective policing of regulations. The
CFP review provides an opportunity to achieve this.
(3)
Providing
for a realistic maximum size for female ray.
(4)
Reducing
the minimum size in compensation to say 40 cm wingspan. There may be scope for two sizes to account
for cuckoo ray and others. Spotted/blonde ray identification difficulties could either be
accommodated or ignored, both options have a differing effect.
(5)
Realignment
of the parts to whole size to achieve 40 cm wing to wing size. (In practice it
is likely to be below this at the moment).
(6)
Introducing
in due course, more area specific measures according to the results of
extensive local researchwhere gear controls and seasonal closures can be
applied.
7. Conclusions
a)
Non
Political
There is
incontrovertible evidence of the need to conserve ray stocks, and that all interested parties in the UK are losing out by the current lack of action. As a group, the rays illustrate well the
complexities and difficulties of fishery management and in particular:-
the science (or lack of information)
the difficulty in providing solutions and
practical remedies
the lack of political will to address the
matter
the difficulties of, and need for,
effective enforcement.
These
arguments are played out, to various extents, in most fisheries managed within
civilised societies worldwide. Each will
set their own particular challenges. For
cod, for example, it is how to conserve large sized fish, which live in mixed
shoals with smaller fish of commercial value such as whiting and haddock that
themselves prey on cod eggs!.
In the case
of bass, it is whether the benefits of the fishery should accrue to a few very
large offshore pair trawlers [UK and European] or to widely dispersed coastal
interests.
Even in the
case of the humble cockle, arguments exist as to whether man or birds should
take priority.
b)
Political
Home Truths
The plight of the ray group amply
illustrates the role of politics and public opinion which produces pressure for
action. This case indicates the process
in reverse. No pressure, no action. Had the ray group been ‘fluffy and cuddly’
and a vote winner, then it is
inconceivable that the stocks would be in the dire state that they are.
As it is, there is next to no pressure
being placed upon the people and bodies that are empowered to take action. This means the EU (CFP), MAFF (National
legislation), and Sea Fisheries Committees. The SWSFC initiative is self led out of desire to see effective
management for wider benefit in an area where rays have historically been very
important. It has yet to receive any
appreciable support from interested parties. Key stakeholders in the UK are:-
(1) The Government - (and accordingly, the Civil Service) will
react only to problems when the public make it a problem for them. Civil Servants rarely appear to be proactive
or adopt a ‘can do, will do’ attitude. Ministers are in office for generally only a short term. If it is not ‘popular’, they will not touch
it, if they can possibly find a way of passing it on to their successor. Opposition parties only take interest when
they are in opposition; when in power the problem becomes ‘a result of the
previous administration’.
It is a fact, that fisheries management
requires ‘short term pain, for long term gain’. Appropriate fisheries management measures require long term planning and
phasing in and frequently involve the taking of unpopular measures at least in
the short while. This is the main reason
why, in democratic countries worldwide, most fisheries are in a dire
state. It takes a crisis, such as that
seen over Newfoundland cod in the 1980s, to make the matter a priority; and
then it may be too late. Political expediency
relates to ‘crisis management’. It need
not be that way.
(2) Commercial Fishermen - are arguably the main
beneficiaries. Unfortunately, falling
fish stocks makes it difficult for commercial fishermen to make ends meet. Accordingly further restrictions are usually
objected to, despite the longer term benefits that will arise. This illustrates the need for short term
compensation to deliver longer term objectives. A recent report by the Worldwide Fund for Nature ‘Chose or Lose’ comes
to the same conclusion. The commercial
fishermen’s lobby is not a strong collective voice in arguing for long term
support for an important industry. Accordingly individual fishermen appear to accept fish stock failure as
a way of life - a means to moving on to the next species which they will also
fish to commercial extinction in the hope that fish stocks they previously
fished have now recovered.
(3) Conservation (green) Interests - have
supported the measures. They have become
far more actively involved in recent years - via membership of voluntary bodies
like RSPB (> 1 million members), Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Trusts,
Shark Trust to name but a few. Governments are starting to listen, because of the ‘green vote’. Ironically the same governments that have
ignored the advice of fisheries scientists and experts for years are now
starting to take note. An example of the
‘popular vote’.
(4) Sea Anglers - But what of sea anglers? The angling lobby (1.1 million sea anglers in
UK, annual spend in Wales of tens of millions of pounds per year) is a
fragmented, weak and a toothless wonder. More concerned about going fishing regardless of what they catch; unable to avoid political infighting
and seemingly unable to work together. The groupings include the Tackle Industry, the Press, the bait industry,
pleasure shore anglers, pleasure boat anglers, charter boats, charter anglers,
specimen hunters, club members - all working independently and sometimes in
different directions. When one views the
strength of co-ordinated action by well funded, articulate and organised bodies
such as the RSPB, and salmon anglers, one is left to consider just what could
be achieved by an organised sea angling lobby.
Anglers contribute much to the UK
economy. The sport contributes a lot to
society as a whole. Sea angling is a
public right. It is a right (morally and
politically if not necessary backed by legal powers) to be able to demand
clean, fish filled seas. It is a mystery
to me why sea anglers are yet to assert themselves.
In the alternative, don’t complain when
fish such as the cod, become rarer and more expensive. We may yet all be eating the humble dog fish
and chips as a national dish! That is
until they too are over exploited ...............
P J COATES
April 2001
Postscript (August 2006)
The above was presented to a Sea Angling conference at which efigees
were placed for the Minister of Sport & Culture and Minister of Fisheries to reflect their
non attendance and interest in all matters sea angling.
Whilst many of the issues are still prominent 6 years on, especially
those relating to the CFP, very much progress has been made in other areas
following a Cabinet Strategy initiative “Net Benefits” in 2004.
DEFRA have replaced MAFF and now apply a more “ecosystem” orientated
approach. Initiatives have been progressed using National legislation which put
the best interests of the fish at stake – even if these are discriminatory
against UK fishermen. Fishery policy is now more proactive.
Sea anglers have found a voice and have begun to assert themselves
calling upon socio-economic arguments to support their importance. Angler
orientated initiatives relate to bass , tope and laterly to limited extent,
rays.
After 15 years of lobbying, government have accepted that SFC
legislation needs modernising to do the job expected of it and that a Marine
Bill will make such changes.
However, no new measures for ray have yet come to bear and the above
challenges still remain….
