[Skegger]

Bass Fishery Management Plan.
I’m not sure that this post is in the right place. I am assuming that somewhere there is a thread on the Bass Fishery Management Plan, (BFMP), but if that is the case I can’t find it. Bass is an important target fish for many anglers so I assume that the BFMP will have been discussed somewhere. If that is the case, could someone please move this post to the appropriate thread. If the questions I raise have already been discussed then please accept my apologies.

My recollections are hazy at best but I was under the impression that the Bass Fishery Management Plan was going to be one of the first FMPs initiated and that it would come out in the Spring of 2022. If I’ve got that wrong or the launch date has been changed then could someone please correct me.

Whatever the dates / timescale is, I could do with a bit of an update. I guess that will fall to Reg or David as representatives of the angling sector and in the know. Again, it’s an assumption but I guess the AT will be representing anglers on the BFMP.

At some stage I imagine a group of people will sit down and thrash out exactly what is, and is not, included in the BFMP. I have wondered how these people will be selected and exactly who will select them. The proportion of angling representatives to the number of industry representatives will need to be decided. If we don’t get this right then I would have major concerns about exactly who ends up managing the fishery.

I’m wondering who makes these selection decisions – I presume its likely to be Defra but I would like to have that confirmed. If it is then I would be very, very concerned about the makeup of the BFMP and other groups. Defra have shafted anglers so many times in the past and this is another opportunity for them to do the same again. I have already expressed concerns elsewhere that making recreational angling a bona fide stakeholder is little more than window dressing. It is up to the AT to make sure this is not the case.

The numbers that follow in the examples below are not exact but they don’t need to be. They are certainly close enough to make the point.

I seem to recall that there are around 800,000 sea anglers in England and marginally more than 3000 commercial fishermen. While not all of these anglers will fish for bass, many of the commercial fishers won’t either. Bass account for around 1% of commercial landings in the UK so they are not exactly vital to the economy. In 2019, the industry as a whole, reportedly contributed just 0.02% of GDP.

If selection for the BFMP was done on the basis of proportional representation based upon the numbers in each sector then the groups makeup would be overwhelming weighted in anglings favour.

I think it was the Blue Water bass survey in Sussex that showed that a bass caught by an angler was worth 40 times that of a bass caught by a commercial fisherman. Based upon this angling representatives would far outweigh those from the commercial sector.

The cold statistics point to the overwhelming majority of the group being charged with the BFMP being made up from the angling sector. Of course, it would need to include someone like Jeremy Percy with his wealth of knowledge of the under ten sector. I feel sure that anglers would welcome representatives of other groups who will have a genuine contribution to make. What we don’t want is a group overloaded in favour of the commercial sector. There would be no justification for this. I would hope that representatives of the various sectors will have had a say in, and agreed to, the make-up of the group. If Defra haven’t afforded the angling orgs this opportunity, then alarm bells ought to be ringing.

So, as a part of the update can someone tell me if the makeup of the group has been decided. If it has then how many members will there be and which sectors do these people represent? If Defra have chosen / will be choosing these people then I would be very concerned. I would be lobbying Defra about the makeup of the group – something I sincerely hope the AT have already done. Defra have been pandering to the industry’s demands and have been ignoring anglers for years. I don’t see anything different happening here. If the BFMP group is primarily made up of representatives of the industry then anglers will be shafted yet again . . . . . . and so sadly, will the bass stock. Commercial bass landings in 2021 have gone through the roof. Do we have any idea who will make up the BFMP group, which sector they represent and who was charged with selecting them?

I also understand that the industry has set up a “Finfish Advisory Group”, FIAG. Finfish Industry Advisory Group to provide forum for fisheries management issues.
A new management group is being formed to focus on non-quota finfish species around the UK. The Finfish Industry Advisory Group (FIAG) will act as a steering group and provide a forum for industry to engage in national level management issues. This comes from Seafish. I’m wondering if this has been Defra sanctioned or is just coming from the industry. Whichever, I find it very worrying. Bass of course are a non quota finfish and I wonder what impact this may have on the Bass Fishery Management Plan. Bass are referred to in the link.

This group have an inaugural meeting in Spring 2022. They may have already met. I wonder if minutes of that meeting are / will be available.

Edit: I understand the group met on 24 March. It has government support in the form of the Fisheries Minister: Finfish Industry Advisory Group to provide forum for fisheries management issues.
I also found the following - a similar group has been set up for shellfish. Shellfish Industry Advisory group - SIAG. This group has apparently been at the cutting edge of the shellfish fishery management plan. I'm wondering if the same will happen to finfish fishery management plans? Seems like the industry have stolen a march - again.

 

[Skegger]

Is there anything sadder than a guy replying to his own post? Whatever, I think I’ve got the answers to the questions I asked. I feel certain that anglers will not be adequately represented on the groups which decide upon the makeup of the fish specific management plans. The government is committed to developing strategies for the management of non-quota stocks in 2022. This will include bass.

Earlier today I contacted Seafish and requested and got minutes of the initial meeting of FIAG within an hour. It was the inaugural meeting so not much was going to be decided. There were 42 representatives at the meeting. One was from the AT, there was a guy who ran fishing trips and someone from “Mindfully Wired”. I'll need to google that. The rest were from the industry, Defra, MMO, (is there any difference?). This is what I mentioned as a major concern in my previous post – a huge numerical bias in favour of the industry on these groups. I hope we are not too late to stop this happening with the Bass Fishery Management Plan but I know we are. I don’t think we’ve even got the people to give us a numerical advantage on these groups. However, I still fail to see how a group which will have a major impact on a public owned, shared resource can have over 90% of its members from an industry which comprises of a little more than 3000 fishermen in England when there are 800,000 anglers sharing that same resource. Sadly, it was all too predictable and I’m confident in suggesting the same thing will happen with the make-up of the group that works on the BFMP.

The heavy bias in favour of industry representatives tells us that anglers are struggling already. There was no mention of recreational angling in the minutes of the meeting. It all seems to be industry centred. I don’t see RSA getting much if anything from this. If stocks are to be managed with RSA as a stakeholder, then they cannot be managed for MSY but I am led to believe that a decision has already been made that this will be the case.. That gives an indication of how little importance is placed upon angling. Angling a bona fide stakeholder?? Pure window dressing.

Edit: I've been told that no decision has been made to manage stocks to MSY. Apparently it is just a proposal . . . . Right . . . . . . . . let's wait and see what happens. Does anyone really see the bass stock, or any other stock of interest to RSA being managed for abundance?

 

[steve pitts]

I've been looking through the Consultation document for the Draft Joint Fisheries Statement, which includes a section on Fisheries Management Plans (relevant section attached).

Just prior to the section on FMPs the draft statement makes a reference to Recreational Sea Angling on page 50 ... all 1/4 of a page, making it very clear that RSA is little more than an afterthought and more of an inconvenience.

The use of the caveat ''where possible'' in consecutive sentences says it all.

4.2.15 Recreational Sea Fishing

4.2.15.1 The fisheries policy authorities will continue to work together - where possible, practicable and appropriate - to ensure recreational sea fishing is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. We will aim, where possible, to take account of recreational sea fishing in wider fisheries management.

4.2.15.2 This will continue to be underpinned by encouraging data collection on catches, economic impact, and species-specific data across the recreational sea fishing sector.

 

[toerag]

Bass account for around 1% of commercial landings in the UK so they are not exactly vital to the economy. In 2019, the industry as a whole, reportedly contributed just 0.02% of GDP.

Overall yes, but to particular parts of the coastline they're a significant proportion of the catch. If you took bass away from various inshore areas you'd put some commercial fishermen out of business for sure.

 

[Skegger]

Overall yes, but to particular parts of the coastline they're a significant proportion of the catch. If you took bass away from various inshore areas you'd put some commercial fishermen out of business for sure.

In the same way that many tackle shops have gone out of business due to dwindling fish stocks . . . . . . but yes, in certain areas bass make up a significant part of a fisherman's income. I have not suggested that commercials are stopped fishing for bass.

 

[steve pitts]

Overall yes, but to particular parts of the coastline they're a significant proportion of the catch. If you took bass away from various inshore areas you'd put some commercial fishermen out of business for sure.

A good reason then to ensure the recovery of the stock, especially the spawning stock biomass, which has been at or below the limit at which the stock is capable of maintaining its viability since 2016

 

[Banksea]

Is there anything sadder than a guy replying to his own post? Whatever, I think I’ve got the answers to the questions I asked. I feel certain that anglers will not be adequately represented on the groups which decide upon the makeup of the fish specific management plans. The government is committed to developing strategies for the management of non-quota stocks in 2022. This will include bass.

Earlier today I contacted Seafish and requested and got minutes of the initial meeting of FIAG within an hour. It was the inaugural meeting so not much was going to be decided. There were 42 representatives at the meeting. One was from the AT, there was a guy who ran fishing trips and someone from “Mindfully Wired”. I'll need to google that. The rest were from the industry, Defra, MMO, (is there any difference?). This is what I mentioned as a major concern in my previous post – a huge numerical bias in favour of the industry on these groups. I hope we are not too late to stop this happening with the Bass Fishery Management Plan but I know we are. I don’t think we’ve even got the people to give us a numerical advantage on these groups. However, I still fail to see how a group which will have a major impact on a public owned, shared resource can have over 90% of its members from an industry which comprises of a little more than 3000 fishermen in England when there are 800,000 anglers sharing that same resource. Sadly, it was all too predictable and I’m confident in suggesting the same thing will happen with the make-up of the group that works on the BFMP.

The heavy bias in favour of industry representatives tells us that anglers are struggling already. There was no mention of recreational angling in the minutes of the meeting. It all seems to be industry centred. I don’t see RSA getting much if anything from this. If stocks are to be managed with RSA as a stakeholder, then they cannot be managed for MSY but I am led to believe that a decision has already been made that this will be the case.. That gives an indication of how little importance is placed upon angling. Angling a bona fide stakeholder?? Pure window dressing.

Edit: I've been told that no decision has been made to manage stocks to MSY. Apparently it is just a proposal . . . . Right . . . . . . . . let's wait and see what happens. Does anyone really see the bass stock, or any other stock of interest to RSA being managed for abundance?

Great to see such an intelligent and insightful post on here.
Thanks for taking the time @Skegger.

I sincerely hope we can trust the Angling Trust to appoint the right person to get the lobbying done to the best effect.

 

[steve pitts]

I think it was the Blue Water bass survey in Sussex that showed that a bass caught by an angler was worth 40 times that of a bass caught by a commercial fisherman. Based upon this angling representatives would far outweigh those from the commercial sector.

I've been wracking my brains to recall which survey that was ... was it the Blue Marine Foundation?

The value to the economy of a European bass caught by sea anglers using rod and line is more than three times that of a fish caught and landed commercially, according to a study for the Blue Marine Foundation published today. The report also found that bass fishing by anglers also creates three times the number of jobs as commercial fishing, with a lower environmental impact than any commercial fishing method other than hook and line.

Research conducted by respected fisheries consultancy, MRAG, showed that anglers bass fishing in Sussex contributed to a total overall spend of £31.3 million through tackle, charter boats and hotels to catch bass in 2012 and created 353 full time jobs. In comparison, commercial sea bass landings in Sussex generated only £9.25 million and 111 full time jobs.

The conclusion drawn by the Blue Marine Foundation, which funded the study, and supported by the Angling Trust, is that it would be better both economically and environmentally if the commercial fleet converted to charter angling and rod and line fishing, making bass a recreational species as it is in Ireland.

 

[Skegger]

I emailed a contact in Defra to see if I could find out who would be responsible for concocting the bass fishery management plan and which interests those people represented. The response could be construed as encouraging IF it’s correct.

I am led to believe that there will not be one specific group of people responsible for the plan but that stakeholders are able to be involved and will have many opportunities to engage.

Without a specific group of people making decisions about what is and what is not in the plan I don’t see how this is going to work. Someone is going to have to make those decisions. Something will have to be written down on paper. I still have major concerns that those people will primarily be from the industry. I wouldn’t want this confirmed when it is too late to do anything about it.

Once again, I’m assuming that the AT / BASS etc are more in the loop so I’m not too sure why no one has responded to my previous posts requesting information. Here’s another appeal for some detail. Perhaps someone in those organisations could explain how they think the system is going to work and if, what Defra have told me, is correct. I cannot imagine that the AT or BASS have yet to be made privy to that info. If they haven’t then the situation is much worse than I thought. Surely the angling orgs have to be involved in the Bass FMP along with representatives from the industry. It cannot be that vague that no specific individuals are involved . . . . as Defra seem to be suggesting.

Regarding what anglers want in a BFMP and given that time is running out, (the govt intend having non quota FMP in place this year. The Bass FMP will be one of the first). I know that BASS drew up an excellent Bass management plan many years ago. I imagine that could form the basis for an updated Bass fishery management plan which would satisfy many bass anglers. Things haven't changed that much so perhaps that could be a starting point?? I also hope that anglers and specifically bass anglers will be encouraged to engage, although I’m not quite sure with whom. I have requested that information from Defra but I feel the likes of AT and BASS should be in a position to advise us on this. I imagine that some anglers would be prepared to make representation but would appreciate knowing what is going on and who they need to contact.

Anglers seem to be in the dark about plans which will have a major impact on their sport. If they are in a position to do so, could someone from the angling orgs please clarify the situation about the makeup of the BFMP group and who we need to contact if we wish to be involved. That doesn’t seem an unreasonable request

 

[steve pitts]

@Skegger

As odd as it may seem, the way that these FMPs will be formulated and agreed upon still appears to be shrouded in a good deal of mystery.

Whilst Defra has been charged with getting them sorted, the 'stakeholder engagement' appears to have been outsourced to a 'communications facilitator group' (don't you love these buzz words) PolicyLab.

My guess is that if sea angling's representative orgs (and that includes representatives of charter skippers, guides, the tackle trade etc.) don't ask to be invited onto the discussion groups, they may be waiting a long time for an RSVP.

Call me cynical, but the scant references in the draft JFS, to recreational sea fishing, is a precursor to the involvement that we will enjoy during this process


4.2.15 Recreational Sea Fishing

4.2.15.1 The fisheries policy authorities will continue to work together - where possible, practicable and appropriate - to ensure recreational sea fishing is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. We will aim, where possible, to take account of recreational sea fishing in wider fisheries management.

 

[steve pitts]

I've been wracking my brains to recall which survey that was ... was it the Blue Marine Foundation?

I've managed to track down a copy of that report (on a French fishing site) and have found reference to the 40 times figures that you mentioned

Main results from this study are presented in (Table 1) and are summarised below.

 A total bass catch of 257.98–267.48 tonnes is estimated for commercial and recreational fisheries in Sussex during 2012.
 Recreational fishers in Sussex are estimated to have landed 17.2–31.2 tonnes of bass in 2012, of which 10.4–19.9 tonnes of bass are estimated to be retained. If a post hooking mortality is considered to be 20% then total removals of bass for recreational fishers increases to 11.76– 22.16 tonnes;
 Commercial fisheries are reported to have landed 247.58 tonnes of bass in 2012; MRAG: Defining the Economic and Environmental Value of Sea Bass Page 2
 For commercial gears, drift and fixed nets are reported to have landed 149.64 tonnes of bass, ~60% of the total commercial catch;  Final economic and employment impacts of recreational bass fisheries in Sussex during 2012 are estimated as £31.3 m and 353 Full Time Equivalent jobs (FTE);
 Final economic employment impacts of commercial bass fisheries in Sussex during 2012 are estimated as £9.25 m and 111.28 FTEs ;
 Per tonne of bass removed, recreational angling in Sussex is estimated to create £1.6–3.0 m in terms of final economic output and 18–34 FTEs.
 Per tonne of bass removed, commercial fishing in Sussex is estimated to create £0.04 m in terms of final economic output and 0.45 FTEs.

The economic output of recreational bass fisheries in Sussex is therefore estimated to be approximately 3.4 times higher than commercial bass fisheries.
The employment generated by recreational bass fisheries is estimated to be approximately 3.2 times higher than commercial bass fisheries.
However it is important to note both that bass may have an important role in the overall operation of some commercial fisheries, in particular because it is a non-quota species, and commercial fishing can represent an important indigenous industry.

The final economic output per tonne of bass retained in Sussex is almost 40–75 times higher for recreational bass fisheries than for commercial bass fisheries.

The employment generated per tonne of bass retained is 39–75 times higher for the recreational bass fisheries than for the commercial fisheries.

It should be noted that the figures presented in this study are based on a number of assumptions that should be fully considered when interpreting these results.
See section 3.7 of the report for details.

http://www.lepecheurresponsable.net/media/kunena/attachments/63/GB2016_Final_Report2.pdf

 

[Skegger]

@steve pitts

Thanks for your response although it has left me almost none the wiser
I note that policylab is another government organisation. Nothing like keeping it, "in house", where some degree of control can be exerted to get the result you want!

Have BASS, (or AT - an organisation I know you can't speak for but perhaps one of their representatives will read this and answer), contacted policylab, (or have policylab contacted the angling orgs), to find out / explain how they intend to source and select stakeholders to work on the BFMP?

Given the timescale involved - 8 months remaining to draw up the plan - I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that this has already been done even though Defra are telling me that this is not the case . . . . . . I wonder! If not then they need to get their backside into gear. That the angling orgs appear to know little worries me greatly. I wonder how much the industry knows?

A thought occurred to me that the "major" stakeholders in the bass fishery are handliners and recreational fishermen and associates - tackle manufacturers, fish producers etc. The MMO and no doubt Defra would also be involved. Netters and trawlers / ring netters cannot legally target bass so I'd be pretty pi$$ed if any netters or trawlermen or their representatives ended up on the group. I think that is something we need to try to make sure doesn't happen. If it were to happen then I would feel that netters and trawlers were trying to get back into the bass fishery. That would have a direct and negative impact on anglers. That is why I feel getting hold of a list of those involved, (if one exists), is so vitally important. It would give us a chance to challenge any selections we were unhappy with..

 

[Skegger]

For anyone interested, (all bass anglers(?), a bit of an update on the process that will take place to create the BFMP, thanks to someone who has gone to the trouble of ferreting this information out.

Policylab has been commissioned by Defra. Defra claim they want to see BFMP designed together by people from across the whole range of interest in the bass stocks. Policylab will facilitate this process.

The process will have two stages. Initially, this summer, Policylab will be carrying out research by talking to commercial and recreational bass fishers. (And I assume other interested groups. I feel that what I said in my previous post about trawlers and netters still stands. This may possibly be an opportunity for them to attempt to sneak back into the fishery. The EU / UK bass legislation makes it clear that netters / trawlers / seiners cannot target bass).

In the Autumn policylab will be having workshops when people from across the sea bass spectrum can sit down and discuss things, (As mentioned several times, the make up of the groups in these workshops is vital and still a potential issue. We don’t want them overloaded by the industry).

The FMP itself will be created by Defra, (alarm bells ringing again. Defra have never done anglers any favours).

Policylab are currently building a database of interested parties. You need to contact Policylab if you wish to be involved. I feel sure that the angling organisations will advise us at some stage and you may wish to wait for any guidance which may come from them. I have taken the liberty of contacting policylab myself as I wish to be involved. This is the email address I am using initially:

[email protected]

 

[Banksea]

Thank for posting this important info @Skegger.
I think it would be useful if Bass Anglers, as individuals, emailed Policylab to express what they want to see in the new Bass Fisheries Management Plan.
It seems like a golden opportunity for individual Anglers to get their voices heard.

The sad truth is that most Anglers are less than well informed and, or, can't be bothered to act even when such useful information gets handed to them on a plate.
I'm grateful to people such as yourself who can be bothered and obviously care a lot about our very poorly managed Bass stocks.

I see that no one from the Angling Trust has commented on this thread yet!!
Maybe he's on holiday!

 

[Skegger]

@Banksea

Good to have a response. I’m sure SOSB or AT can furnish anglers with a wealth of information they would like to see included in the BFMP.

For example, it is ludicrous to have a stock, which can only be targeted by recreational fishermen and commercial handliners, managed by MSY. The stock needs to be managed for abundance or at the very least MEY (Maximum Economic Yield).

To increase the size of the biomass and regenerate the stock we could increase the MCRS to 50 cm in increments of 2 cm per annum so it didn’t impact negatively upon commercial handliners. A 50 cm bass is worth roughly twice as much as a 42 cm bass. The bigger the fish the more it is worth per kilo. The fishermen would only need to catch half the number of 50 cm bass for the same amount of money. If they caught the same number of fish @ 50 cm then they could double their money. Who wouldn’t want that?

Economically, recreational bass angling is worth many times more than commercial bass angling. As Steve’s post points out; the MRAG study shows how a bass is worth 40 – 70 more to the recreational sector than the commercial sector. The number of jobs generated by recreational caught bass is 39 -70 times more than commercially. Isn’t this about maximising economic yield?

The value of bass angling to the economy is somewhere around £200,000,000. Commercial first sale value of bass is £4,800,000 when averaged out over the last 5 years. 75% of those bass are exported so the “knock on value” isn’t there for fishmongers, restaurants and so on.

These are incredibly powerful arguments backed up by hard evidence. It seems a no brainer to consider RSA to be the major stakeholder when drawing up the BFMP. I wonder how many people in Policylab and working on the BFMP are aware of all this? Whatever, I don’t think it’s for me to decide what anglers want in the plan. That really needs to be coming from the Angling Trust / Save our Sea Bass. Who knows, perhaps we will hear from them soon.

 

[Skegger]

This may be on interest to bass anglers, especially with the BFMP about to get underway.
https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/136822/Eumofa_Seabass+Market+study+report_EN.pdf

On page 2, recreational bass angling in the UK generates expenditure of between 188m and 282m Euros. Between £158m and £237m

On the same page is reference to "over half of the UK wild bass landings are exported". So all the economic multipliers through retail/wholesale and restaurants, occur overseas rather than the UK.

More wild bass is supplied to the UK food chain from recreational sea anglers than from commercial catches! Most (98+%) is supplied from imported farmed bass.

In 2019 UK landings of wild bass were 430 tonnes, 300 of which were exported. During that year, the UK imported 9,500 tonnes of bass!

 

[REG PHILLIPS]

Thank for posting this important info @Skegger.
I think it would be useful if Bass Anglers, as individuals, emailed Policylab to express what they want to see in the new Bass Fisheries Management Plan.
It seems like a golden opportunity for individual Anglers to get their voices heard.

The sad truth is that most Anglers are less than well informed and, or, can't be bothered to act even when such useful information gets handed to them on a plate.
I'm grateful to people such as yourself who can be bothered and obviously care a lot about our very poorly managed Bass stocks.

I see that no one from the Angling Trust has commented on this thread yet!!
Maybe he's on holiday!

I have been on holiday to Weymouth on Flamer 4 for the week.

There are far better, well informed people than me to answer these questions so I have passed this thread up the chain for consideration.

Been catching these with some great mates.

 

[REG PHILLIPS]

@Banksea

Good to have a response. I’m sure SOSB or AT can furnish anglers with a wealth of information they would like to see included in the BFMP.

For example, it is ludicrous to have a stock, which can only be targeted by recreational fishermen and commercial handliners, managed by MSY. The stock needs to be managed for abundance or at the very least MEY (Maximum Economic Yield).

To increase the size of the biomass and regenerate the stock we could increase the MCRS to 50 cm in increments of 2 cm per annum so it didn’t impact negatively upon commercial handliners. A 50 cm bass is worth roughly twice as much as a 42 cm bass. The bigger the fish the more it is worth per kilo. The fishermen would only need to catch half the number of 50 cm bass for the same amount of money. If they caught the same number of fish @ 50 cm then they could double their money. Who wouldn’t want that?

Economically, recreational bass angling is worth many times more than commercial bass angling. As Steve’s post points out; the MRAG study shows how a bass is worth 40 – 70 more to the recreational sector than the commercial sector. The number of jobs generated by recreational caught bass is 39 -70 times more than commercially. Isn’t this about maximising economic yield?

The value of bass angling to the economy is somewhere around £200,000,000. Commercial first sale value of bass is £4,800,000 when averaged out over the last 5 years. 75% of those bass are exported so the “knock on value” isn’t there for fishmongers, restaurants and so on.

These are incredibly powerful arguments backed up by hard evidence. It seems a no brainer to consider RSA to be the major stakeholder when drawing up the BFMP. I wonder how many people in Policylab and working on the BFMP are aware of all this? Whatever, I don’t think it’s for me to decide what anglers want in the plan. That really needs to be coming from the Angling Trust / Save our Sea Bass. Who knows, perhaps we will hear from them soon.

What we will need is many angling voices screaming at Defra, MMO, IFCA's, again at our coastal MP's who have been very supportive in the past, making sure angling representation within the BFMP is, at the very least, equal in number to CF. That cannot be achieved with only SOSB and the AT fighting our corner, the CF sector's voice is simply is too loud and has too tight a grip on Defra's neck. I have been saying for over a decade now that RSA needs to take on the responsibility and accountability for our actions as it is RSA alone that can save our sport as WE want it saved.

WSF could be an additional voice, hopefully one of many additional voices supporting the hard work put in by SOSB and the AT and even branching out in different directions to give Defra something to think about and maybe even silence the CF sector during these meetings. You have highlighted some important statistics SEAFOOD and CF would rather have hidden during these meetings so how about sending that information onto Defra as a collective WSF voice. Start a new thread on how WSF should respond and ask for support from the membership. WSF could go further and inspire the many clubs and individuals on here to send out a message to DEFRA that we expect them to deliver for RSA and save our public owned recreational Bass fisheries around the UK.


It all depends on how badly we want it.

 

[Skegger]

In the absence of any response from the organisations representing anglers, (until Reg's above), I contacted Policylab at:
[email protected]
I got the following response:

We are at the start of the Bass project and currently carrying out a number of stakeholders interviews to better understand the context, from multiple perspectives, and help us design the remainder of the project. This will not be our only engagement method as the aim is to co-design the FMP with those it affects. We are planning to run a series of co-design sessions later in the summer, once we have done research into fishers lived experience too which can be brought into the sessions and inform conversations along with other evidence.

Please could you come back to me with further information on your background and area of interest within the bass FMP? This will help us to accommodate your engagement.

I will be getting back to Policylab as requested. Any anglers interested in the BFMP may wish to take the same route.

 

[steve pitts]

In the absence of any response from the organisations representing anglers, (until Reg's above), I contacted Policylab at:

I think you'll find that I have responded five times to this thread Dave.

BASS is formulating some proposals to feed into the BFMP and has registered an interest in being part of the Policy Lab engagement process.

There are active discussions and conversations going on in the BASS members' forum, as there are here (and I hope other sea angling forums)

You have my email and phone no. if you want to discuss anything.
It would be good to catch up.

Kind regards
Steve