Return

Response to the proposed Whitsands Bay Marine Sanctuary Zone Public Consultation by the National Federation of Sea Angler.

 Prepared by DER on behalf of the  NFSA Conservation and Access Group.                  Final Draft

 The NFSA Conservation Group have studied the proposals and agree wholeheartedly with the Objectives and Associated Objectives as listed in 1.2  and 1.3  although it is disappointing that the overall impression emanating from the document is that the reason for the proposal to create a MSZ is to protect the interests of the Scylla Artificial Reef Project and those of the divers who enjoy its benefits.

 Recreational sea anglers are fully aware of just how seriously our publicly owned fish stocks have been overfished over many decades with the result that the opportunities for Sea Anglers to catch mature  fish have diminished therefore anglers applaud any serious attempts at rebuilding depleted stocks providing such plans are scientifically supported.

In terms of fish stock management, anglers view MPAs as one tool amongst others to address over exploitation. However, anglers are concerned that MPAs in the form of NTZs are not introduced as a last ditch panacea solution to over fishing to be implemented due to the failure to address over fishing by more traditional management measures. We believe, traditional measures such as 'minimum landing sizes', minimum mesh sizes, areas closed to over efficient methods (eg. mackerel box) and control on amount of gear able to be deployed (linear dimension of gill & tangle nets) have largely failed, due to lack of commitment and opposition from commercial fishing interests. Had traditional management measures been far more restrictive and robustly implemented, the growing call for NTZs may not have materialised.

 The critical factor for sea anglers deciding whether to support MPAs/NTZs is to consider the 'objectives' of the proposed MPZ and decide whether the continuation of sea angling jeopardises or threatens those objectives.

 In the case of the proposed Whitsands Bay area, we do not believe continued access to recreational sea angling will in any way prevent the realisation of the stated objectives.  Indeed, the substantial socio-economic impact from sea angling, highlighted in the recent DEFRA commissioned Study supports the objectives.

 We are aware that there is a considerable number of anglers within the East Cornwall and Plymouth Area who regularly fish the proposed area, have expressed an unequivocal objection to the proposed ban, citing such reasons a the public right to fish from shore as granted by Magna Carter, and the refusal to voluntary give up their rights in favour of what has been interpreted locally as a commercial enterprise, ie the much publicised NMA plans to develop the diving opportunities within Whitsands Bay. 

 We submit that sea anglers do not interfere with the activities of divers, in fact they stay as far as possible away from any diving activity to avoid any conflict.

 Therefore we cannot support the total banning of angling within the MSZ but would rather suggest that a voluntary catch and release method be introduced for the recreational sea angler because the sea within the proposed area is shallow and catch & release can readily be applied to the sea angling activity.

 In fact Catch & release is already wide spread within sea angling and recommended by the NFSA where anglers only wish to keep a portion of their catch for personal consumption and the practice is rapidly growing in popularity, especially for dogfish, bull huss, sharks, rays and wrasse.

 The NFSA is currently drawing up “Code of Practise for both shore & boat angling so that mortality from permitting a catch & release system within a MSZ is minimised.

 The NFSA would be very pleased along with the help of local angling clubs and organisations to assist with the launching such a code in order that it meets with the objectives of the proposed MZS. In fact if it were agreed that angling could continue within the MSZ we would consider it our responsibility to do so.

 Finally if it is not possible or acceptable to introduce a catch and release for the proposed area, we would submit that the MZA should be reduced in size to an area immediately adjacent to the Scylla Artificial Reef and enable the status quo to exist for the remaining area.                               ENDS:-

top of page