The survey commissioned by Natural England and undertaken by CEFAS has obviously caused division amongst sea anglers.

The survey is being undertaken, as I understand it, in the Northeast, Northwest and Southeast to gain an insight in to sea angling activity, catches, popular venues and amount of time fished amongst other things with relation to the future imposition of MCZ’s, Marine Conservation Zones. You can only contribute if you fish in one of these areas.

Some say the survey should be filled in to show that sea angler’s care about the future even if it means sea angling is restricted within proposed Marine Conservation Zones, and I have some sympathy with that reasoning if MCZ’s are run correctly.

However, others feel that the timing of this survey is suspicious given what’s going on with Article 47 and are rightly concerned that information given in any response could be used to the future detriment of sea anglers as early as the April decision on Article 47 and the possible inclusion of Recreational Sea Angling within commercial catch quotas. Again, having read some of the questions in the survey, I can understand their suspicions.

What stands out to me is that the survey’s final date for response is as early as February 16th,  but has been running through January. This gives little real time for anglers to respond, so response numbers are likely to be very small and not at all accurate as to how overall numbers of anglers feel about the individual questions. 

The surveys direct approach is highlighted by some of the questions within the survey. One such question asks “Where do you fish most often or name the town closest to it.” You could suggest that if lots of people said “Dungeness” for example that they then could say that sea anglers are having a detrimental effect on that particular mark, even though overall catches off that particular mark may be poor. With “crafty” questions like that, is it any wonder so many anglers are suspicious of the surveys intentions!

“How many times a year do you go sea angling” and “How many of each target fish did you catch last year” also “Do you dig your own bait” are obviously there to judge overall angling pressure. I can see why they ask, but that information needs to be accurate. Sea angler’s results over the past few years have generally not been good, you only need read forum boards to realise that, but even so we need to make sure that our information is used to our benefit and not against us.

Many anglers share the concern that given that the survey can be completed on-line, what’s to stop mischievous anti-anglers from filling in the forms and giving a totally unrealistic response? Those compiling the final information will have no understanding of angling whatsoever and will lack the ability to spot an untruth! I trust no one when it comes to open surveys, and I’m surprised that the survey instigators have not approached prominent web sites and the media in the quoted areas, whose readership are all guaranteed anglers. That’s a question I’d like answered before any forms are filled in. Either the media have been deliberately ignored, or you could argue the structure of the survey is flawed for not looking at this obvious mass opportunity to gather factual information.

The promise of “big fish overspill” from MCZ’s shows a lack of understanding of how zones need to work. Firstly the zones have to be fully policed and I doubt this will be the case on a storm tossed night when a UK/foreign trawler could nip in and clear the lot out. Policing costs money and the UK is forever cutting back on budgets. Before we can answer the questions on how we feel about MCZ’s, we need to be fully reassured they will be fully policed and effective!

Once, as the survey quotes, the “big fish” have over-spilt out of the MCZ’s, what’s to stop the commercial guys mopping them up legally? Nothing! So what benefit are sea anglers going to get unless we get access to the MCZ’s on a catch restricted basis which equally won’t go down well with the commercial boys. Likewise unless commercial discards are eliminated completely to allow the fish stocks en masse to multiply throughout the sea, then MCZ’s may well prove to have minimal benefit in the long term regarding safeguarding of stocks.

I could go on and on and on! A survey, to be accurate, needs to be comprehensively put together, of a long duration to get as many accurate responses in as possible, and target the exact right people. This survey, well intentioned it may well be, to me achieves none of these essential criteria and will result in a weak, ineffective response for all concerned.

One way sea anglers can have a dramatic effect on the future of our seas is that with a General Election just around the corner, immaterial of with which party your allegiance lies, write to your MP and tell them that if they don’t voice full support for Sea Angling as a recognised sport, and eliminate commercial discards so the sea can restock and the commercial fisherman that are left make a sustainable living without having to empty the seas, he’ll not be getting your vote! If enough sea anglers can be bothered to do that, it will make a difference!

The mess we are in now is solely down to the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy and bureaucrats that will not listen to people who know far better than they ever will, and plenty have voiced their concerns over the past 30 years only for it to fall on deaf ears!

For more information:

Sea Anglers Conservation Network MCZ Information

Nature England: Marine Conservation Zones

England Marine Conservation Zone Project

Marine Conservation Zones