Call for restrictions in bid to curb ‘most damaging fishing’
AN open letter written by a commercial fisherman has called for restrictions to curb the most damaging forms of fishing.
The letter issued on behalf of the Our Seas coalition describes a need to “reverse the decades of mismanagement that has already hollowed out much of our inshore fishing industry.”
Alistair Philp, National Coordinator of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, writes: “Now that the threat of the poorly thought-out Highly Protected Marine Area (HPMA) proposals has passed, it is time to have a sensible debate about the alternative options.”
It argues for the reinstatement of an inshore limit akin the historic three-mile limit on trawling – designed to preserve fish nursery and spawning grounds – such as was in place until 1984.
It also notes that government studies have shown “that a reinstated inshore limit on trawling would yield more economic benefit for rural Scotland”.
The letter distinguishes between damaging fishing and small-scale sustainable fishing, and notes that the public recognise the difference.
“One of the most telling responses to the HPMA consultation,” writes Mr Philp, “was the public concern that all fishing would be banned. Many people recognised the big difference between small-scale, low impact creel and dive fishing boats, and those larger more industrial vessels which trawled the seabed and likely need to be regulated in some areas. Why ban them all?”
The original three-mile-limit, which was in place for a century, allowed for low-impact creel fishing, but banned industrial trawlers.
It was scrapped in 1984, says the letter, following the “mismanagement and consequent collapse of both the herring and inshore whitefish fisheries” when new fish stocks were sought for exploitation.
This opened to “industrial bottom-trawling” those inshore fishing grounds that had previously been “the lifeblood and last refuge of the small-scale inshore day-boat fleet”.
The political discourse around HPMAS, the letter notes, has ignored this context. “Headlines decrying HPMAS as risking the total destruction of the fishing industry and rural communities, have focused the public debate about our fisheries as a battle between insensitive central belt politicians against salmon farmers and fishermen united in defence of rural development and values.”
“The truth is as ever much more complex. Whilst many small-scale inshore fishermen had very legitimate concerns about the unacceptable uncertainty created by the Government’s plans to ban all fishing in an unspecified 10% of Scotland’s seas, the campaign against HPMAS was in fact backed by some very deep commercial pockets.”
Among those it cites as running a “concerted campaign” against HPMAS are Scottish Salmon and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. It expresses concern that those same bodies may now be poised to “naysay any future conservation measures”.
The Our Seas letter states: “Our inshore fishermen and many of our coastal communities have been paying the price ever since [the scrapping of the inshore limit]: trawling in the late 80s and 90s quickly hoovered up the remaining inshore fish stocks, then the fleet turned to trawling for shellfish and in the process caught thousands of tonnes of juvenile fish as bycatch.”
Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said: “We believe in the coexistence of fleet segments, which leads to more sustainable and balanced use of marine resources.
“Stocks in Scottish waters including the west coast are showing positive trends, demonstrating that spawning areas and juvenile grounds are healthy.
“Those that are not recovering may be related to other factors, e.g. changing environmental conditions and intensity of natural mortality from predators. The industry is constantly seeking ways to improve selectivity and avoid bycatch.”