TAKE BACK WHAT’S YOURS

Recreational fishing must be recognised in the new Fisheries Bill, says the Angling Trust’s head of marine, David Mitchell

Many sea anglers will no doubt have seen leaving the EU as the opportunity to get away from the rules and regulations dogging their beloved pastime, such as bag limits, total bans and data collection to see what impact angling is having on various stocks.

However, a leaked draft of proposals for the new UK Fisheries Bill reveals that a greater degree of regulation in certain cases may be required where there is evidence that angling has had a significant impact on stocks.

In other words, the UK is planning to be as stringent as the EU, if not more so, in controlling recreational fishing when it is deemed to be a problem for commercially important stocks.

This might come as a shock to those who thought all the over-regulation on angling was coming from Brussels, and that by leaving the EU the UK would let sea anglers go back to being unregulated and free from management measures.

In contrast to this, our neighbours from around Europe are gearing up to lobby that recreational sea angling is part of the Common Fisheries Policy. This will mean the public fishing recreationally are recognised as a legitimate and valuable part of the catching sector, rather than a problem area that must be controlled when it’s deemed to be having an impact on commercially important fish stocks. They’ve realised that if you want to play the game, you’ve got to have a seat at the table.

FIGHTING HARD

Wouldn’t it be ironic if angling bodies from around the EU finally achieved this and ended up having better recognition and influence through the Common Fisheries Policy, compared to UK anglers in a UK Fisheries Bill in which recreational angling isn’t recognised as a legitimate use of the UK’s fish stocks?

Once the proposals for the Bll are published, the Angling Trust will be fighting as hard as it can to make sure angling gets proper recognition. We need to see some positive management objectives for angling, such as abundant inshore stocks, and the presence of large adult, mature, fish that drive anglers to keep going fishing – and spending money.

For some stocks, there’s no doubt that members of the public fishing recreationally for them generates more money and more jobs than commercial fishing, as well as having a lower impact on the stock. This idea of ‘optimal utilisation’ is something we’ve been pressing hard for, based on examples from around the world such at the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries & Conservation Act from the USA. In New Zealand’s Fisheries Act, before setting or adjusting any commercial catch limit, the Government must have regard to the total allowable catch for that stock and must allow for non-commercial fishing interests. In other words, the public’s right to fish recreationally and for their own consumption comes first, and if there’s anything left over it can go toward a commercial quota.

Back here in Europe we’ve allowed our right to catch publicly-owned fish to be eroded to such an extent, we are now seeing total bans on recreational fishing, while commercial fishing continues. It’s time the public – and that means you – took back what’s rightfully yours. ■