Nets investigated

[strandwolf]

As we enter a stage where we are forced to protect resources for the future, we must accept that personal gain must be second to protection. Hereby we as Artisanal fishers "fishers that derive their livelihood by harvesting maine resources as the ONLY means of income" investigated all netting activities in SA coastal waters. We with COSATU created the COSATU FISHING DESK. This organ have the power to adress the minister directly and have the muscle as well. Members of this desk include big bussines to recreational.

We know and can prove wrongs by MCM, but mudslinging wont save the fisheries. We have to start at one point with a rolling effect and thoroughly research and investigate before laws and regulations are made and the input of those affected must be listened to. The seas and the resources belong to the people of SA, and not to those with the rights to harvest. Its no use to harvest 2t hake but u destroy 5t kingklip etc.

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

Beach seine

This pratice by our fishing communities date back 400 years and is historical to the communities. We allowed the reduction to 1 permit per zone and no use of weighted netts. The law stipulate the size, lengh and depth of the net as well as the ropes on each side. Marine monitors to be present when this nets are to be used. Only shoals of fish inshore can be targeted exept galjoen, White Steenbras, Grunter, Belman etc.

Contrary to believe it's not the net trekkers who destroy the fish as so widely stated. When researhed you will find that the net can only catch what is there the day to catch if the fishers notice the fish. In False bay development cause destuction of fish habitats and pattern year by year. Sewers, rivers and drains putting huge amount of toxins in the water and coupled to the current by the SE and N winds stay in the bay, like a washing machine. When these clean water return fishing improves again.

Let we have response please

 

[Kumz]

Thats great , preserve our resources ...

 

[Reefman]

Fascinating post Strandwolf... you have PM mail.

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As we enter a stage where we are forced to protect resources for the future, we must accept that personal gain must be second to protection. Hereby we as Artisanal fishers "fishers that derive their livelihood by harvesting maine resources as the ONLY means of income" investigated all netting activities in SA coastal waters. We with COSATU created the COSATU FISHING DESK. This organ have the power to adress the minister directly and have the muscle as well. Members of this desk include big bussines to recreational.

Welcome on board Strandwolf. I am bit wary of some of the statements that have come from COSATu regarding fishing. Some of them have factual inaccuracies.

We know and can prove wrongs by MCM, but mudslinging wont save the fisheries. We have to start at one point with a rolling effect and thoroughly research and investigate before laws and regulations are made and the input of those affected must be listened to. The seas and the resources belong to the people of SA, and not to those with the rights to harvest.

This is a nice sentiment and it the sea is a public good to be made available to all. But for commercial fishing you have to put a cap on the number of people who fish. This means you have to go through a selection citeria to determine who can or can't fish. Open access fisheries simply fail.

Its no use to harvest 2t hake but u destroy 5t kingklip etc.

You're on the right track with this one and it is encompassed by taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries. In other words don't just look at the target species but all the other goggas and nunus as well.

Longliners are restricted to 5% of kingklip to their hake so their are already stringent measures in place.

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

Here you are simply wrong or you are confusing a whole range of activities.

There used to be netting allowed in some estuaries but this has been stopped.

You will recall that there was provision for nets in the Berg river but that was stopped years ago.

There is only one area and that is in the Ebenezer (sp?) region this is provided for people who are incredibly poor and have no other source of income and employment. I can't imagine COSATU wanting to add to joblessness among people who are indigent.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

Here you seem to be confusing the inshore bottom trawl and offshore bottom trawl. they could  really be considered separate fisheries. I have huge personal issues with inshore trawling but what would make more sense would be tighter bycatch controls

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

There is observer coverage on their trips already. These observers send reports back to MCM on a regular basis.

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

Coming from a snoek fishing background as I do ( I have the scars and the bilton to prove it)  I like this one. It is so simplistic though that it is unworkable.

Once again, when those fish plants on the West Coast stand idle or are closed. I hope it is you that has to face the shore based workers and explain why they have to go home hungry and without work.

Beach seine

This pratice by our fishing communities date back 400 years and is historical to the communities. We allowed the reduction to 1 permit per zone and no use of weighted netts. The law stipulate the size, lengh and depth of the net as well as the ropes on each side. Marine monitors to be present when this nets are to be used. Only shoals of fish inshore can be targeted exept galjoen, White Steenbras, Grunter, Belman etc.

I have no personal difficulties with Trek netting and the species that you mentioned are not allowed anywy (I am not sure why you included them?).

There is already a monitoring programme in place for linefish and thhis includes trek netters as well.


Contrary to believe it's not the net trekkers who destroy the fish as so widely stated. When researhed you will find that the net can only catch what is there the day to catch if the fishers notice the fish. In False bay development cause destuction of fish habitats and pattern year by year. Sewers, rivers and drains putting huge amount of toxins in the water and coupled to the current by the SE and N winds stay in the bay, like a washing machine. When these clean water return fishing improves again.

Let we have response please

The main comment that I would have is that while your sentiments might be sound the technical details are lacking.

Much of what you are suggesting is not practically deliverable. It certainly taps into populist sentiments and is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The Socialist track record on environmental protection has not been very good. If you have a chance read "Mao's war against nature". This details the reductionist approach that was adopted and the terrible harm that occurred.

Fortunately most former socialist countries have abondonned their failed experiment and have developed a more integrated approach.

The efforts of COSATU have to be seen agaisnt the backdrop of the ANC's drive for an election victory in the Western Cape.

As an alliance partner their must be tremendous pressure to find a scapegoat for failed government policies.

If we adopt this approach then many of your suggestions become election promises that can simply not be delivered (again).

jb

 

 

[strandwolf]

JB2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you dont have to teach me about politics as i dont care. Regarding fishing industry you got lots to learn. Stop reading news papers and come down to earth, visit a fishing community or MCM's website. The fish i caught in 1990 you will never catch in 5 lifetimes.

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

JB2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you dont have to teach me about politics as i dont care. Regarding fishing industry you got lots to learn. Stop reading news papers and come down to earth, visit a fishing community or MCM's website. The fish i caught in 1990 you will never catch in 5 lifetimes.

Hi Strandwolf

I also don't care too much for politics.

I don't get much chance to read the newspaper these days.

I have visited quite a few fishing communities. I am familiar with MCM's website.

You haven't mentioned what in particular was wrong in my reply. I think you will find that most of the comments on the regulation of fishing is factually accurate.

You don't say why you caught so much fish in 1990 or what type of fish it was. I assume it was snoek.

jb

 

 

 

[miles]

Hiya

There are quite a few very pertinent points i wish to raise.

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

jb has pretty much covered the bases on this.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

I don't know anything about trawling for sole, so will keep my comments to the hake trawlers. I have seen first hand the type of waste generated by the hake trawlers in particular and agree that longlining hake is far less destructive and more ecologically friendly. How-ever, things aren't always as simply as they seem. Banning the hake trawlers would result in a collapse of our yellowfin fishery, which is possibly one of THE best on this planet. The tuna are attracted to the entrails which are discarded at sea. Removing the trawlers will thus cause the fish to move away, resulting in probably a total collapse of the commercial tuna fishing sector!

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

Agreed!! MCM has already started down this path, with a hefty fine being imposed last season on a trawler loaded with snoek in Saldahna (if i recall correctly)

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

This is problematic. You're a commercial snoek fisherman and therfor know quite well how far snoek will travel in a day. You could start at Slangkop and be at the wrecks or Groendam with-in a hour or two chasing moving schools. Secondly, snoek will follow the baitfish, so effectively, there will ALWAYS be predatory fish close to the baitfish. By imposing a 10nm limit, the baitfish trawlers will not be able to catch their quota, which'll mean they export their catch's and very little will be allocated to the local market. This will result in a HUGE price increase in bait, or as we see each year, a complete LACK of bait!! The commercial AND recreational anglers will suffer, due to the bait shortages AND very high prices.

 

Now for some general comments. The decline of our inshore species can primarily be directed to the commercial line sector. Whilst you have outlined what you intend to do with all the other fisheries, what is planned for the commercial line fisherman?

Lets look at this: all the fish mentioned above, kingklip, hake, various baitfish, steenbras, belman, galgoen, etc are NOT targetted by the commercial line fishing industry. Species like cob, geelbek, yellowtail, snoek, red roman, red steenbras and red stump's are the main target species here in the cape. There are no trawlers or other fisheries that have been havesting many of these species. Lets look at Geelbek. Only the commercial line fishing guys have targetted them. Their current status: collapsed! Red roman, same thing: collapsed. Same for Red steenbras, red stump's. The commercial line fishing sector is directly responsible for this. What is being done about this?

Lets look at by-catch's. You quite rightly want to limit by-catch's. Our commercial tuna organisation is involved in a tagging tuna project and have raised serious concerns about our fish stocks. They have gone so far as to suggest dropping the legal recreational limit of 10 tuna per angler to 2 tuna per angler. So WHY does the commercial line fishing sector, which has tuna as a BY-CATCH, want their by-catch to be INCREASED from 10 to 40 tuna per fisherman (longfin/albacore)?

Almost all the species targetted by commercial line fishing is in the callapsed status. Its time for the line fisherman to wake up and realise that there are better ways of making money. The days of filling your boat every trip is well over. FORCING the line fishing boats to start taking ICE to sea is a start!! Look at fish like yellowtail. Catching them and putting them on ice will get you double or even triple the price you get locally, when exported. The commercial line fishing industry needs to be educated on how to better look after their fish, thereby getting a higher price. This means you can get more money by catching less fish, which makes ecological as well as economical sense. Many of the bigger line fishing boats are already rigged to carry ice, as they're forced to when they target tuna, so just a simple adjustment in the mind-set can cause a dramatic change. Bottom line, look well after your fish, ice them properly, handle them properly and you'll make more money than the other guys who are catching 2-3 times more fish than you!!

With a ever declining fish stock, we need to find ways of maximising profit on our fish we catch, as well as trying to sustain the fish stocks.

There are plenty more issue's worth looking at, like making the commercial line fishing fleet smaller. Scrap the 4 and 5 man licences. You can't make enough money to survive on fishing alone with these small boats. MCM can easily check up on your catch records, via the blue book. Check which boats aren't performing well. I know of a number of business owners who still have commercial line fishing rights. By scrapping all those who are NOT proper commercial line fishermen, there'll be more control and more fish for the GENUINE commercial line fisherman.

Regards

miles

 

 

[strandwolf]

Miles
Thanks for your input, I tried last night to answer JB2's comment and when I posted the lines went dead and i lost all. I will start a thread explaining the issues of linefishers and what we are doing about that.
But I wish to inform you of the following facts:

Linefish research was not done for the last 15 years and only now they started again.
The bottom trawlers in Mosselbay targeting inshore hake and sole are decimating the juvinile cob and cape salmon, bycatches of up to 2ton per trawl.
As Mate on the pelagic vessel Morgenster the difference between shoal snoek and pelagic was obvious and in 9 years the most snoek we caught in our net (497fm x 45fm) was 400. Reason being that the predator is on the outside of the shoal and you can cut them of. Todays sonars is like a PS2 game.
The bottom trawlers was 7 vessels pre 2002 now 49, because every right holder want to harvest his/her own fish and hereby the spanish are back.

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As we enter a stage where we are forced to protect resources for the future, we must accept that personal gain must be second to protection. Hereby we as Artisanal fishers "fishers that derive their livelihood by harvesting maine resources as the ONLY means of income" investigated all netting activities in SA coastal waters. We with COSATU created the COSATU FISHING DESK. This organ have the power to adress the minister directly and have the muscle as well. Members of this desk include big bussines to recreational.

Welcome on board Strandwolf. I am bit wary of some of the statements that have come from COSATu regarding fishing. Some of them have factual inaccuracies.

I would like to see these statements you refer to, I joined the board as i think that we need the inputs of the recreational fisher when discussing policy at MCM.

We know and can prove wrongs by MCM, but mudslinging wont save the fisheries. We have to start at one point with a rolling effect and thoroughly research and investigate before laws and regulations are made and the input of those affected must be listened to. The seas and the resources belong to the people of SA, and not to those with the rights to harvest.

This is a nice sentiment and it the sea is a public good to be made available to all. But for commercial fishing you have to put a cap on the number of people who fish. This means you have to go through a selection citeria to determine who can or can't fish. Open access fisheries simply fail.

I agree and the selection criteria is only now being finalised, bit late after allocations was made to non fishers, but investigations is in progress.

Its no use to harvest 2t hake but u destroy 5t kingklip etc.

You're on the right track with this one and it is encompassed by taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries. In other words don't just look at the target species but all the other goggas and nunus as well.

Longliners are restricted to 5% of kingklip to their hake so their are already stringent measures in place.

Again the bycatch will always be filled no matter the amount as setting the line ensure you catch your bycatch.

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

Here you are simply wrong or you are confusing a whole range of activities.

Fishers on the west coast target cob, galjoen and white steenbras with their set nets.

There used to be netting allowed in some estuaries but this has been stopped.

You will recall that there was provision for nets in the Berg river but that was stopped years ago.

Go and look in veldrift and laaiplek how many nets are in the river.

There is only one area and that is in the Ebenezer (sp?) region this is provided for people who are incredibly poor and have no other source of income and employment. I can't imagine COSATU wanting to add to joblessness among people who are indigent.

The situation on the east coast is a real problem and we are discussing solutions. The permit conditions to those fishers are not viable, even the recreational permit is more viable as those in their permit conditions. eg the fisher may harvest 2 crabs but recreational permit allows 5. The fisher may not use any type of vessel or floating device therby curbing his range of fishing etc.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

Here you seem to be confusing the inshore bottom trawl and offshore bottom trawl. they could  really be considered separate fisheries. I have huge personal issues with inshore trawling but what would make more sense would be tighter bycatch controls

Yes it's different fisheries but the destruction is the same. As long as bycatch is allowed they will target the bycatch, but it's the destroying of juvinile fish thats the worry. once the fish slime, scales etc is removed the fish have an 98% mortality.

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

There is observer coverage on their trips already. These observers send reports back to MCM on a regular basis.

Current observers is by a private company, The knowledge of these observers is what the skipper tells them.

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

Coming from a snoek fishing background as I do ( I have the scars and the bilton to prove it)  I like this one. It is so simplistic though that it is unworkable.

Works fine in Namibia, just go see the stats

Once again, when those fish plants on the West Coast stand idle or are closed. I hope it is you that has to face the shore based workers and explain why they have to go home hungry and without work.

Fishmeal plants operate with 24 staff, canneries use seasonal workers, trawlers process at sea. We say deliver the catch to be processed at shore to give these workers permanent employment.

Beach seine

This pratice by our fishing communities date back 400 years and is historical to the communities. We allowed the reduction to 1 permit per zone and no use of weighted netts. The law stipulate the size, lengh and depth of the net as well as the ropes on each side. Marine monitors to be present when this nets are to be used. Only shoals of fish inshore can be targeted exept galjoen, White Steenbras, Grunter, Belman etc.

I have no personal difficulties with Trek netting and the species that you mentioned are not allowed anywy (I am not sure why you included them?).

There is already a monitoring programme in place for linefish and thhis includes trek netters as well.

Beachseine and linefish is not monitored as we wished it to be, the fishers do not contact the monitors etc. Linefish are monitored sometimes ie Stompneusbaai or Yzerfontein when the inspector ask what you caught. Never actually counting or weighting the catch as for wcrl or abalone.

Contrary to believe it's not the net trekkers who destroy the fish as so widely stated. When researhed you will find that the net can only catch what is there the day to catch if the fishers notice the fish. In False bay development cause destuction of fish habitats and pattern year by year. Sewers, rivers and drains putting huge amount of toxins in the water and coupled to the current by the SE and N winds stay in the bay, like a washing machine. When these clean water return fishing improves again.

Let we have response please

The main comment that I would have is that while your sentiments might be sound the technical details are lacking.

This was never meant to be a technical indepth detailed discussion as we could go on forever stateing the pro's and cons. The point is that fishers at the World fishers Forum want to stop the nets.

Much of what you are suggesting is not practically deliverable. It certainly taps into populist sentiments and is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The Socialist track record on environmental protection has not been very good. If you have a chance read "Mao's war against nature". This details the reductionist approach that was adopted and the terrible harm that occurred.

Fortunately most former socialist countries have abondonned their failed experiment and have developed a more integrated approach.

The efforts of COSATU have to be seen agaisnt the backdrop of the ANC's drive for an election victory in the Western Cape. Wrong as our discussion began 2002.

As an alliance partner their must be tremendous pressure to find a scapegoat for failed government policies.

If we adopt this approach then many of your suggestions become election promises that can simply not be delivered (again).

jb

 

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

JB2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you dont have to teach me about politics as i dont care. Regarding fishing industry you got lots to learn. Stop reading news papers and come down to earth, visit a fishing community or MCM's website. The fish i caught in 1990 you will never catch in 5 lifetimes.

Hi Strandwolf

I also don't care too much for politics.

I don't get much chance to read the newspaper these days.

I have visited quite a few fishing communities. I am familiar with MCM's website.

You haven't mentioned what in particular was wrong in my reply. I think you will find that most of the comments on the regulation of fishing is factually accurate.

You don't say why you caught so much fish in 1990 or what type of fish it was. I assume it was snoek.

jb

I made it a point not to speak to ghosts or any person trying the political game in fisheries. All my years fishing was not about politics but the more you wet your hands the better your income was regardless race or creed. I also make a point of knowing the facts on black and white before i state those hence i told you to visit MCM website. My pelagic catch was 78000t in 1990.
 

 

 

[strandwolf]

Lets look at by-catch's. You quite rightly want to limit by-catch's. Our commercial tuna organisation is involved in a tagging tuna project and have raised serious concerns about our fish stocks. They have gone so far as to suggest dropping the legal recreational limit of 10 tuna per angler to 2 tuna per angler. So WHY does the commercial line fishing sector, which has tuna as a BY-CATCH, want their by-catch to be INCREASED from 10 to 40 tuna per fisherman (longfin/albacore)?

The reason being that recreational's are selling their catches and some wants in on the market.
We are also against those charters that was granted rights as tuna permit holders may catch snoek unlimited, again an A and B situation. Why allow 10 tuna but only 4 shad per fisher?

 

[miles]

Your answer above is NOT quite clear to me, regarding WHY the commercial line fisherman want their by-catch limit of tuna to be INCREASED whilst the tuna industry is concerned about our stock levels of tuna.

My main concern is that the commercial line fishing sector is DIRECTLY responsible to the destruction of our inshore species. Targetting the commercial net fishing sectors is merely shifting the blame. What about the collapsed fish stocks which the commercial line fisherman target.

Case in point. Look at the fish stocks in the Port Elazabeth area. There is an ABUNDANCE of almost all the demersal line fish, like cob, geelbek and reef fish. WHY? Quite simple, because they haven't been targetted by the cmmercial line fishing fleet. In PE, there is more money to be made in the chokka/squid industry, hence commercial fishing being very low key there, HENCE the great line fish stocks.

After wiping out most of the False Bay fish stocks, the commercial line fishing fleet now wants access to the commercial tuna fishery, by trying to get larger by-catch bag limits. I have no probelm sharing a resource, BUT, it needs to be done properly. November/December two seasons ago, many of the commercial line fishing boats started targetting Yellowfin tuna, which is allowed as by-catch. Even with the snoek being plentifull, they were still targetting tuna, which now becomes their primary catch and NOT their by-catch. I can recall watching a 8 man line fish boat off-load his tuna at Kalk bay, bragging that they only took 6 bins of ice to sea. I carry 40-45 bins of ice. Needless to say, their quality of their fish is inferior to ours. This inferior fish gets dumped onto the local market as well as getting exported. Now here comes the issues. Our exported fish will then get a poor name, due to the poor quality of fish coming from SA. When they stop catching tuna and start cathing snoek again, WE, the commercial TUNA fleet will suffer by getting poor prices becuase our export quality fish is deemed poor!! Yet another fishery that the commercial line fishing fleet is trying to get into!!

Food for thought......

 

[mickey1200]

@ Miles.
You seem to know a lot about all these industry. You always write great posts.

If you were given the job to protect our fish species, how would you go about it? What would you like to chance?

 

[miles]

Mickey1200, there's a phenominally large fishing industry in SA. Each with their own set of problems. Solutions to preserving our fish stocks are numerous, each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Looking at JUST the inshore fish, which is targeted by the recreational rock and surf angler, as well as the inshore recreational boat anglers as well as the commercial line fisherman. Typical species would be: kob, geelbek, yellowtail, red roman, red stump's and red steenbras, just to mention a few.

Lets look at geelbek/cape salmon as an example. Recreational anglers, both from shore and boats are only allowed 2 geelbek per angler, whilst the commercial line fishing vessels are allowed an unlimited catch. The status of geelbek is reflected as collapsed. One commercial boat, in a place like PE or Struisbaai, catch's more geelbek in one season, than ALL the recreational boats on the SA coast would catch in a year! This in-equality doesn't make sense to me! Limiting the recreational's and allowing unlimited harvesting by the commercials, for a species that is collapsed, simply isn't helping the fish stocks.

A simple, yet VERY effective technique, which is used VERY succesfully across the globe, is the introduction of slot sizes. Lets say we introduce a new law, which allows anglers to ONLY keep fish that are between the sizes of 600mm to 1100mm, which equates to roughly 2kg's to 12kg's. All fish UNDER 2kg's are to be released and all fish OVER 12kg's are to be released. Most recreational anglers already know that large sized fish don't taste as good as their small sized counterparts. By releasing the LARGER BREEDING stock, the fish have a greater chance of repopulating their species. NOW, carry this SAME principle over to the commercial fishing sector. They TOO have to abide by the same slot sizes as recreationals!! All this means is that they still catch geelbek, still adhere to the minimum size limits, BUT also release all the bigger breeding stock. The majority of geelbek caught falls in this weight catagory anyways, so its no real great financial lose to the commercials. By doing this, it will lead to SUSTAINABLE harvesting of the resource.

Now comes the CRUCIAL part. It MUST be policed effectively and the fines imposed must be large enough to be seen as a deterent. Lets say a R50 000 fine for a recreational angler PLUS the possibility of jail time, and the SAME for a commercial, PLUS having his commercial fishing right revokes and being banned from ANY participation in ANY commercial fishing sector. Furthermore, ANY fish buyer, be it a private individual, I&J, Pick 'n Pay, etc, who is found in possession of a geelbek OVER 1100mm/12kg's, would also face a R50 000 fine and the possibility of jailtime! Ensuring that there is enough of a risk of being caught, and being severely dealt with, will deter the majority from illegal activities.

Another facet where MCM is falling short, in my opinion, is their bag limits for recreational anglers. The recreational rock and surf and boating fraternity is a multi-million, if not multi-billion industry. From 4x4's to boat builders, to tackle manufacturers. Once a certain fish stock has recovered, INCREASING the bag limits for that species for recreationals is another good idea. Say, instead of 2 geelbek, recreationals can now take 5 or 8 geelbek per person, still abiding by the slot limits of course. Many inland anglers spend huge sums of money, a boat, 4x4, fishing tackle, accomadation, food, etc when he comes down to the coast once or twice a year. He generates revenue for small coastal villages and is their life blood. Offering a slightly bigger bag limit, will ensure that he has sufficient fresh fish for his holiday, as well as being able to pack some away for when he returns home.

Our fish stocks is a natural resource, which is meant to be shared amongst all of us, be it recreational or commercial. Offering increased bag limits (with-in reason of course!!), could be the country's way of thanking their citizens and allowing them to partake in the country's natural resource.

Following the same reasoning, one could apply this to all the species with-in the inshore realm.

Another place we are sorely lacking in is reserve or marine protected area's. We do have numerous reserves, but far too little ESTAURY/LAGOON reserves. Fish like the white steenbras need estauries to survive. The developement and pollution has caused many estuaries along our coast to become silted up or too polluted for the white steenbras. By establishing more estuarine reserves, with strict no development around them policies, we can ensure a health nursery for many species, like the white steenbras, so that it can repopulate its species.

These are merely SMALL examples, of real world solutions, that is practical and implementable, with little detrimental effect to all parties concerned.

 

[miles]

Another workable, real world solution:

Re-educating the commercial line fishing industry.

Let me start off by saying a commercial line fisherman is one who has a HUGE love for the sea, a passionate affair with the oceans and is somebody who is very passionate about fishing.

How-ever, the days of filling your boat with fish every trip and making good money is over! With our ever dwindling fish stocks and the need for the commercial fisherman to make a living, how can one reach a compromise?

Simple actually. FORCE all line fishing boats to carry ice!! Why and what would this do?

Lets start of by explaining a typical days commercial fishing for yellowtail. You leave harbour before dawn, catch your chokka at Buffels and then go look for the fish outside/inside Cape Point. When the fish are 'dik', catchs of 1000kg's+ on a 6 man boat is normal. Now, how are these fish kept? They're thrown on top of each other, in a open 'laatjie' (compartment on the boat), baking in the sun. The boats can then return anytime from 12:00 to 5pm, depending on how late the fish were biting. The catch would then have stood a whole day in the sun, and the fish at the bottom of the pile are crushed into pulp!! Now you get back to the harbour and the fishing was good and everyone is 'plat-ge-laai' (full). The langaana (fish buyer) now offers you R10 per kg, as there is plenty of fish. So, you make R10 000 for the day.

By carry-ing ice, you now have a GREAT quality product, which you can export at between R25-30 per kg. So, you could have made R30 000 on a 1000kg's of fish!! At what cost though? Well, ice costs about R250 per 1000kg's and a 6 man boat will need about 400-500kg's of ice, which'll cost R150 or so. The boat will be heavier, so the fuel consumption will go up, but only marginally so, because commercial mono-hulls bang the daylights out of you when empty, but run like dream with a bit of weight on it. So, for less than R500 you can earn more than R19 000 extra on the SAME quantity of fish................

The REAL advantage is that you now only NEED to catch 300kg's to make R9000, as opposed to catching 1000kg's to make R10 000 with-out ice!! PERFECT solution, asd you'll be catching LESS fish, yet making the SAME amount of money. A win-win situation for all, once again, with SUSTAINABILITY for both the fish and the fisherman!!

The commercial tuna fleet have adopted this prcatice, so has the hake longlining fleet, as well as others. The commercial line fishing fleet is still locked onto the old mentality of filling your boat with as much fish as possible and not caring about the QUALITY of their catch's.

I've used yellowtail as an example, because the trend world-wide is to move towards eating sushi, which is healthier for humans and yellowtail is one of THE best sushi fish!! There is a HUGE demand for sushi grade yellowtail worldwide, if only our commercial line fishing fleet can be persuaded to change the way they treat their catch's, very good money can be made, WHILST preserving the fish stocks!!

 

 

[Colin G]

[color="#006600"]miles[/color] wrote:

Mickey1200, there's a phenominally large fishing industry in SA. Each with their own set of problems. Solutions to preserving our fish stocks are numerous, each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Looking at JUST the inshore fish, which is targeted by the recreational rock and surf angler, as well as the inshore recreational boat anglers as well as the commercial line fisherman. Typical species would be: kob, geelbek, yellowtail, red roman, red stump's and red steenbras, just to mention a few.

Lets look at geelbek/cape salmon as an example. Recreational anglers, both from shore and boats are only allowed 2 geelbek per angler, whilst the commercial line fishing vessels are allowed an unlimited catch. The status of geelbek is reflected as collapsed. One commercial boat, in a place like PE or Struisbaai, catch's more geelbek in one season, than ALL the recreational boats on the SA coast would catch in a year! This in-equality doesn't make sense to me! Limiting the recreational's and allowing unlimited harvesting by the commercials, for a species that is collapsed, simply isn't helping the fish stocks.

A simple, yet VERY effective technique, which is used VERY succesfully across the globe, is the introduction of slot sizes. Lets say we introduce a new law, which allows anglers to ONLY keep fish that are between the sizes of 600mm to 1100mm, which equates to roughly 2kg's to 12kg's. All fish UNDER 2kg's are to be released and all fish OVER 12kg's are to be released. Most recreational anglers already know that large sized fish don't taste as good as their small sized counterparts. By releasing the LARGER BREEDING stock, the fish have a greater chance of repopulating their species. NOW, carry this SAME principle over to the commercial fishing sector. They TOO have to abide by the same slot sizes as recreationals!! All this means is that they still catch geelbek, still adhere to the minimum size limits, BUT also release all the bigger breeding stock. The majority of geelbek caught falls in this weight catagory anyways, so its no real great financial lose to the commercials. By doing this, it will lead to SUSTAINABLE harvesting of the resource.

Now comes the CRUCIAL part. It MUST be policed effectively and the fines imposed must be large enough to be seen as a deterent. Lets say a R50 000 fine for a recreational angler PLUS the possibility of jail time, and the SAME for a commercial, PLUS having his commercial fishing right revokes and being banned from ANY participation in ANY commercial fishing sector. Furthermore, ANY fish buyer, be it a private individual, I&J, Pick 'n Pay, etc, who is found in possession of a geelbek OVER 1100mm/12kg's, would also face a R50 000 fine and the possibility of jailtime! Ensuring that there is enough of a risk of being caught, and being severely dealt with, will deter the majority from illegal activities.

Another facet where MCM is falling short, in my opinion, is their bag limits for recreational anglers. The recreational rock and surf and boating fraternity is a multi-million, if not multi-billion industry. From 4x4's to boat builders, to tackle manufacturers. Once a certain fish stock has recovered, INCREASING the bag limits for that species for recreationals is another good idea. Say, instead of 2 geelbek, recreationals can now take 5 or 8 geelbek per person, still abiding by the slot limits of course. Many inland anglers spend huge sums of money, a boat, 4x4, fishing tackle, accomadation, food, etc when he comes down to the coast once or twice a year. He generates revenue for small coastal villages and is their life blood. Offering a slightly bigger bag limit, will ensure that he has sufficient fresh fish for his holiday, as well as being able to pack some away for when he returns home.

Our fish stocks is a natural resource, which is meant to be shared amongst all of us, be it recreational or commercial. Offering increased bag limits (with-in reason of course!!), could be the country's way of thanking their citizens and allowing them to partake in the country's natural resource.

Following the same reasoning, one could apply this to all the species with-in the inshore realm.

Another place we are sorely lacking in is reserve or marine protected area's. We do have numerous reserves, but far too little ESTAURY/LAGOON reserves. Fish like the white steenbras need estauries to survive. The developement and pollution has caused many estuaries along our coast to become silted up or too polluted for the white steenbras. By establishing more estuarine reserves, with strict no development around them policies, we can ensure a health nursery for many species, like the white steenbras, so that it can repopulate its species.

These are merely SMALL examples, of real world solutions, that is practical and implementable, with little detrimental effect to all parties concerned.

Hi Miles

Sorry that is not quite right. The latest reseach has shown that the Recreational boat and shore angling is a R18.8 BILLION industry. That has more active members than cricket and rugby put together. In fact it is the largest outdoor activity in SA. The commercials are a small number of participants compared to us. I feel that it is about time that we start making our presence felt. Personally I believe that there are good and bad in both the commercial and the recreational fields. It is easier to educate a recreational angler than a commercial for the simple reason that we do not depend totally on what we catch for a living. The problem is that we (humans) battle to think past to-day.

Thank you and the others for a very interesting thread. Anything that can be done to preserve the sea stocks must be welcome. One of the reasons for the lack of action is that no politian can make a huge fortune from the industry.

 

 

[jb]

 

Hi Strandwolf

 

Before I look at your reply in detail can I summarise some inconsistencies in your reply.

 

1. "We need observers  / observers don't work" you suggest that we need monitors but when I point to observers on the horse mackerel boat, you say that he just writes down what the skipper tells him."[/*]
2. Confusing illegal practices with official policy. You suggest that there are a variety of evils associated with particular practice but you don't point out that these practices are illegal. You talk about high illegal bycathces or illegal fishing in estuaries but these are not problems particular to a sector.[/*]
3. Suggesting that COSATU's interest in fishing is apolitical. You might not be a particularly political person and I pointed out that I generally shun politics but I think it would be unfair to expect me t believe that the COSATU fishing desk is not highly politicised.

[/*]
 

 

 

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As we enter a stage where we are forced to protect resources for the future, we must accept that personal gain must be second to protection. Hereby we as Artisanal fishers "fishers that derive their livelihood by harvesting maine resources as the ONLY means of income" investigated all netting activities in SA coastal waters. We with COSATU created the COSATU FISHING DESK. This organ have the power to adress the minister directly and have the muscle as well. Members of this desk include big bussines to recreational.

Welcome on board Strandwolf. I am bit wary of some of the statements that have come from COSATu regarding fishing. Some of them have factual inaccuracies.

I would like to see these statements you refer to, I joined the board as i think that we need the inputs of the recreational fisher when discussing policy at MCM.

We definitely need the recreational voice. How does COSATU view recreational fishing overall? Does it call for its expansion or would it rather preference be given to the artisinal sector?

We know and can prove wrongs by MCM, but mudslinging wont save the fisheries. We have to start at one point with a rolling effect and thoroughly research and investigate before laws and regulations are made and the input of those affected must be listened to. The seas and the resources belong to the people of SA, and not to those with the rights to harvest.

This is a nice sentiment and it the sea is a public good to be made available to all. But for commercial fishing you have to put a cap on the number of people who fish. This means you have to go through a selection citeria to determine who can or can't fish. Open access fisheries simply fail.

I agree and the selection criteria is only now being finalised, bit late after allocations was made to non fishers, but investigations is in progress.

Investigation has been ongoing and Miles has addressed this point so eloquently that I will skip over it.

Its no use to harvest 2t hake but u destroy 5t kingklip etc.

You're on the right track with this one and it is encompassed by taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries. In other words don't just look at the target species but all the other goggas and nunus as well.

Longliners are restricted to 5% of kingklip to their hake so their are already stringent measures in place.

Again the bycatch will always be filled no matter the amount as setting the line ensure you catch your bycatch.

This does not address the issue though. Some bycatch is inevitable. What should be done with it?

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

Here you are simply wrong or you are confusing a whole range of activities.

Fishers on the west coast target cob, galjoen and white steenbras with their set nets.

This is an illegal practice and should be stopped.

There used to be netting allowed in some estuaries but this has been stopped.

You will recall that there was provision for nets in the Berg river but that was stopped years ago.

Go and look in veldrift and laaiplek how many nets are in the river.

These nets are illegal. Compliance is shocking across the country but you don't say why illegal practices are a reason to shut down the entire fishery.

There is only one area and that is in the Ebenezer (sp?) region this is provided for people who are incredibly poor and have no other source of income and employment. I can't imagine COSATU wanting to add to joblessness among people who are indigent.

The situation on the east coast is a real problem and we are discussing solutions. The permit conditions to those fishers are not viable, even the recreational permit is more viable as those in their permit conditions. eg the fisher may harvest 2 crabs but recreational permit allows 5. The fisher may not use any type of vessel or floating device therby curbing his range of fishing etc.

Ebenezer is on the west coast. It is a harder kiefnet fishery. The only legal estuarine net fishery.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

Here you seem to be confusing the inshore bottom trawl and offshore bottom trawl. they could  really be considered separate fisheries. I have huge personal issues with inshore trawling but what would make more sense would be tighter bycatch controls

Yes it's different fisheries but the destruction is the same. As long as bycatch is allowed they will target the bycatch, but it's the destroying of juvinile fish thats the worry. once the fish slime, scales etc is removed the fish have an 98% mortality.

Do you suggest shutting both? As I said i have huge problems with the way the trawlers target snoek, kob, panga etc. From an environmental justice point of view linefishers should have preferential access to these species.

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

There is observer coverage on their trips already. These observers send reports back to MCM on a regular basis.

Current observers is by a private company, The knowledge of these observers is what the skipper tells them.

See above. If you have information about observers not doing their job then please contact the observer company. Capfish has the contract for the "Desert Diamond" and Dave and his crew are a very professional operation.

If you would feel more comfortable sending a PM then please do so.

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

Coming from a snoek fishing background as I do ( I have the scars and the bilton to prove it)  I like this one. It is so simplistic though that it is unworkable.

Works fine in Namibia, just go see the stats

What works fine? Is there really a 10NM limit in Nam. In any event isn't there TAC a fraction of ours (I could be wrong on this)

Once again, when those fish plants on the West Coast stand idle or are closed. I hope it is you that has to face the shore based workers and explain why they have to go home hungry and without work.

Fishmeal plants operate with 24 staff, canneries use seasonal workers, trawlers process at sea. We say deliver the catch to be processed at shore to give these workers permanent employment.

There are secondary employees such as shoreskippers as well but we don't have to go into that.

Beach seine

This pratice by our fishing communities date back 400 years and is historical to the communities. We allowed the reduction to 1 permit per zone and no use of weighted netts. The law stipulate the size, lengh and depth of the net as well as the ropes on each side. Marine monitors to be present when this nets are to be used. Only shoals of fish inshore can be targeted exept galjoen, White Steenbras, Grunter, Belman etc.

I have no personal difficulties with Trek netting and the species that you mentioned are not allowed anywy (I am not sure why you included them?).

There is already a monitoring programme in place for linefish and thhis includes trek netters as well.

Beachseine and linefish is not monitored as we wished it to be, the fishers do not contact the monitors etc. Linefish are monitored sometimes ie Stompneusbaai or Yzerfontein when the inspector ask what you caught. Never actually counting or weighting the catch as for wcrl or abalone.

Strandwolf. let's separate out scientific monitorring and compliance monitorring. I have the inspectors out at the Muizneberg /Strandfontein treks. You haven't dealt with the issue that the fish that you mention are already off limits.

Contrary to believe it's not the net trekkers who destroy the fish as so widely stated. When researhed you will find that the net can only catch what is there the day to catch if the fishers notice the fish. In False bay development cause destuction of fish habitats and pattern year by year. Sewers, rivers and drains putting huge amount of toxins in the water and coupled to the current by the SE and N winds stay in the bay, like a washing machine. When these clean water return fishing improves again.

Let we have response please

The main comment that I would have is that while your sentiments might be sound the technical details are lacking.

This was never meant to be a technical indepth detailed discussion as we could go on forever stateing the pro's and cons. The point is that fishers at the World fishers Forum want to stop the nets.

Who were these fishers. Can you post a copy of the minutes. What did they have toay about the recreational sector?

Much of what you are suggesting is not practically deliverable. It certainly taps into populist sentiments and is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The Socialist track record on environmental protection has not been very good. If you have a chance read "Mao's war against nature". This details the reductionist approach that was adopted and the terrible harm that occurred.

Fortunately most former socialist countries have abondonned their failed experiment and have developed a more integrated approach.

The efforts of COSATU have to be seen agaisnt the backdrop of the ANC's drive for an election victory in the Western Cape. Wrong as our discussion began 2002.

It began even earlier but it should be seen against the backdrop of teh Equality Court challenge and Masifundise's activities.

As an alliance partner their must be tremendous pressure to find a scapegoat for failed government policies.

If we adopt this approach then many of your suggestions become election promises that can simply not be delivered (again).

jb

 

I still believe in robust dialogue. What ideas do you have for representation of recreational interests on the COSATU fishing desk?

jb

 

[Polychaete]

.......and I thought I knew something about fishing and the related industries.

This is a highly interesting read and I won't even try to comment.   I hope it's an indication that something is starting to happen, that some of us just don't see.

 

[mickey1200]

@ Miles. Mana bru, mana!!!!!!!!

 

[strandwolf]

[color=#006600]jb[/color] wrote:

 

Hi Strandwolf

 

Before I look at your reply in detail can I summarise some inconsistencies in your reply.

 

1. "We need observers  / observers don't work" you suggest that we need monitors but when I point to observers on the horse mackerel boat, you say that he just writes down what the skipper tells him."

[/*]
The monitors/observers that we want will be community based according to their zone as per policy. In short the monitor will ensure that in his/her zone no illegalities occur as the future of the resource now is co-managed by him/her, mcm, and the fisher.

1. Confusing illegal practices with official policy. You suggest that there are a variety of evils associated with particular practice but you don't point out that these practices are illegal. You talk about high illegal bycathces or illegal fishing in estuaries but these are not problems particular to a sector.

[/*]
All sectors is in discusion 

1. Suggesting that COSATU's interest in fishing is apolitical. You might not be a particularly political person and I pointed out that I generally shun politics but I think it would be unfair to expect me t believe that the COSATU fishing desk is not highly politicised.

[/*]
Cosatu is political, but the desk comprises of numerous different persons and political agendas i believe, But never we talk political only fish. I stated that recreational have a seat but was represented once only by a SADSAA member.



 

 

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]strandwolf[/color] wrote:

As we enter a stage where we are forced to protect resources for the future, we must accept that personal gain must be second to protection. Hereby we as Artisanal fishers "fishers that derive their livelihood by harvesting maine resources as the ONLY means of income" investigated all netting activities in SA coastal waters. We with COSATU created the COSATU FISHING DESK. This organ have the power to adress the minister directly and have the muscle as well. Members of this desk include big bussines to recreational.

Welcome on board Strandwolf. I am bit wary of some of the statements that have come from COSATu regarding fishing. Some of them have factual inaccuracies.

I would like to see these statements you refer to, I joined the board as i think that we need the inputs of the recreational fisher when discussing policy at MCM.

We definitely need the recreational voice. How does COSATU view recreational fishing overall? Does it call for its expansion or would it rather preference be given to the artisinal sector?

As i said the seat is open

We know and can prove wrongs by MCM, but mudslinging wont save the fisheries. We have to start at one point with a rolling effect and thoroughly research and investigate before laws and regulations are made and the input of those affected must be listened to. The seas and the resources belong to the people of SA, and not to those with the rights to harvest.

This is a nice sentiment and it the sea is a public good to be made available to all. But for commercial fishing you have to put a cap on the number of people who fish. This means you have to go through a selection citeria to determine who can or can't fish. Open access fisheries simply fail.

I agree and the selection criteria is only now being finalised, bit late after allocations was made to non fishers, but investigations is in progress.

Investigation has been ongoing and Miles has addressed this point so eloquently that I will skip over it.

We are doing investigations as we do not accept the findings of the RVU.

Its no use to harvest 2t hake but u destroy 5t kingklip etc.

You're on the right track with this one and it is encompassed by taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries. In other words don't just look at the target species but all the other goggas and nunus as well.

Longliners are restricted to 5% of kingklip to their hake so their are already stringent measures in place.

Again the bycatch will always be filled no matter the amount as setting the line ensure you catch your bycatch.

This does not address the issue though. Some bycatch is inevitable. What should be done with it?

By having competent monitors/observers with expertiece in the particular fishery, bycatches will be at a low coupled to a preformance bonus to the skipper.

Setnets/gillnets

these are nets set in rivers, estauries, lagoons or even near coastal ie Laaiplek Dwarskersbos, targetting harders. We know that cob, galjoen, shark and white steenbras are targetted. We ask for full ban of these netts.

Here you are simply wrong or you are confusing a whole range of activities.

Fishers on the west coast target cob, galjoen and white steenbras with their set nets.

This is an illegal practice and should be stopped.agreed

There used to be netting allowed in some estuaries but this has been stopped.

You will recall that there was provision for nets in the Berg river but that was stopped years ago.

Go and look in veldrift and laaiplek how many nets are in the river.

These nets are illegal. Compliance is shocking across the country but you don't say why illegal practices are a reason to shut down the entire fishery. ??

There is only one area and that is in the Ebenezer (sp?) region this is provided for people who are incredibly poor and have no other source of income and employment. I can't imagine COSATU wanting to add to joblessness among people who are indigent.

The situation on the east coast is a real problem and we are discussing solutions. The permit conditions to those fishers are not viable, even the recreational permit is more viable as those in their permit conditions. eg the fisher may harvest 2 crabs but recreational permit allows 5. The fisher may not use any type of vessel or floating device therby curbing his range of fishing etc.

Ebenezer is on the west coast. It is a harder kiefnet fishery. The only legal estuarine net fishery.

estuaries is breeding spots. To allow these nets is to ask the japanese to bring back their gill nets in the tuna sector. beach seine per comunity as well as white mussel allocations on the west coast even wcrl.

Bottom trawl

The destroyer of oceans. Used to target Hake and Sole. These fish live on muddy ground to shale ground. Kingklip between rocks. These rightholders seem to always fulfill their bycatch allowed on kingklip and reports by crew of dumping tons of undersize means this must be stopped. The breeding ground of cob is the same as the trawl grounds for Sole. For every 1 sole 100 cob are destroyed. We say full ban.

Here you seem to be confusing the inshore bottom trawl and offshore bottom trawl. they could  really be considered separate fisheries. I have huge personal issues with inshore trawling but what would make more sense would be tighter bycatch controls

Yes it's different fisheries but the destruction is the same. As long as bycatch is allowed they will target the bycatch, but it's the destroying of juvinile fish thats the worry. once the fish slime, scales etc is removed the fish have an 98% mortality.

Do you suggest shutting both? As I said i have huge problems with the way the trawlers target snoek, kob, panga etc. From an environmental justice point of view linefishers should have preferential access to these species.

Yes change to longlineing

Midwater trawl

Maasbanker, Orange roughy are targeted, but huge volumes os snoek are as Bycatch. Surely the difference can be seen on echo sounders between species. We ask for heavy fines to the kg of bycatch caught not to tons and mcm inspectors on board all trips.

There is observer coverage on their trips already. These observers send reports back to MCM on a regular basis.

Current observers is by a private company, The knowledge of these observers is what the skipper tells them.

See above. If you have information about observers not doing their job then please contact the observer company. Capfish has the contract for the "Desert Diamond" and Dave and his crew are a very professional operation.

Money is the greed of all evil. Take the employees of MCM from the last couple of years, today they critisize MCM and all are working for the fishing companies, meanwhile it was them who made rulings based on no research.

If you would feel more comfortable sending a PM then please do so.

Purse seine

Sardine, anchovie, redeye and maarsbanker are targeted. We ask for strenghening of permit conditions. No fishing in waters Shallower as 80 m / 40fm and no fishing within 10nm of the nearest snoek fishers or shoals. Mcm inspectors on board at all trips.

Coming from a snoek fishing background as I do ( I have the scars and the bilton to prove it)  I like this one. It is so simplistic though that it is unworkable.

Works fine in Namibia, just go see the stats

What works fine? Is there really a 10NM limit in Nam. In any event isn't there TAC a fraction of ours (I could be wrong on this)

Nam tac currently due to the NINO effect is low but improving again, Their tac was always more than SA tac. But we refer to Pelagic vessels with their snoek bycatch. Nam vessels just dont catch snoek and their monitors are educated to reading and understanding nav equipment included echo and sonar.

Once again, when those fish plants on the West Coast stand idle or are closed. I hope it is you that has to face the shore based workers and explain why they have to go home hungry and without work.

Fishmeal plants operate with 24 staff, canneries use seasonal workers, trawlers process at sea. We say deliver the catch to be processed at shore to give these workers permanent employment.

There are secondary employees such as shoreskippers as well but we don't have to go into that.

Sure 1 shore skipper for the factory fleet, 4t fish for 1t fishmeal, 1 ton fishmeal R1400 old price. The combined vessel salary R90/t. And i do not speak of canned pilchard nor bait.

Beach seine

This pratice by our fishing communities date back 400 years and is historical to the communities. We allowed the reduction to 1 permit per zone and no use of weighted netts. The law stipulate the size, lengh and depth of the net as well as the ropes on each side. Marine monitors to be present when this nets are to be used. Only shoals of fish inshore can be targeted exept galjoen, White Steenbras, Grunter, Belman etc.

I have no personal difficulties with Trek netting and the species that you mentioned are not allowed anywy (I am not sure why you included them?).

There is already a monitoring programme in place for linefish and thhis includes trek netters as well.

Beachseine and linefish is not monitored as we wished it to be, the fishers do not contact the monitors etc. Linefish are monitored sometimes ie Stompneusbaai or Yzerfontein when the inspector ask what you caught. Never actually counting or weighting the catch as for wcrl or abalone.

Strandwolf. let's separate out scientific monitorring and compliance monitorring. I have the inspectors out at the Muizneberg /Strandfontein treks. You haven't dealt with the issue that the fish that you mention are already off limits.

We do not want any beach seine to target any off limit fish.

Contrary to believe it's not the net trekkers who destroy the fish as so widely stated. When researhed you will find that the net can only catch what is there the day to catch if the fishers notice the fish. In False bay development cause destuction of fish habitats and pattern year by year. Sewers, rivers and drains putting huge amount of toxins in the water and coupled to the current by the SE and N winds stay in the bay, like a washing machine. When these clean water return fishing improves again.

Let we have response please

The main comment that I would have is that while your sentiments might be sound the technical details are lacking.

This was never meant to be a technical indepth detailed discussion as we could go on forever stateing the pro's and cons. The point is that fishers at the World fishers Forum want to stop the nets.

Who were these fishers. Can you post a copy of the minutes. What did they have toay about the recreational sector?

Websites is available, subscribe to SAMUDRA and you will be updated.

Much of what you are suggesting is not practically deliverable. It certainly taps into populist sentiments and is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The Socialist track record on environmental protection has not been very good. If you have a chance read "Mao's war against nature". This details the reductionist approach that was adopted and the terrible harm that occurred.

Fortunately most former socialist countries have abondonned their failed experiment and have developed a more integrated approach.

The efforts of COSATU have to be seen agaisnt the backdrop of the ANC's drive for an election victory in the Western Cape. Wrong as our discussion began 2002.

It began even earlier but it should be seen against the backdrop of teh Equality Court challenge and Masifundise's activities.

We started pre 1994, and we took the case to court, Masifundise joined the cause after papers were filed. Neseegh is on the board of WFF

As an alliance partner their must be tremendous pressure to find a scapegoat for failed government policies.

If we adopt this approach then many of your suggestions become election promises that can simply not be delivered (again).

jb

 

I still believe in robust dialogue. What ideas do you have for representation of recreational interests on the COSATU fishing desk?

The seat is open

jb