As I write these lines, there is a draft decree aimed at reducing recreational fishing opportunities on the pollack species. The public consultation runs until March 10, 2024. To fully understand what is at stake with this project, which goes much further than a simple measure, as has often been imposed on us up to now, let's see exactly what is at stake.
What is the basis for this draft order?
Just put the written justification in the project, and I quote "Due to lack of data, recreational catches are not included in the assessment; however, the current assessment has been shown to be robust to a series of assumptions about recreational catch levels". You'd think we were dreaming: lacking data and assumptions, the people who come up with these texts don't work scientifically. We remember only too well the false figures, recognized by IFREMER, that were used to set up the recreational regulations on sea bass. It worked, so why not do it again?
If the species is truly endangered, a moratorium for all, professional and recreational fishermen alike, during the reproduction period will allow the species to recover. The plundering of sea bass spawning grounds has continued and is still going on, and we know where these little measures are leading: it's just the confiscation of a common resource for the benefit of a few.
These winter leisure fisheries are essential to the sustainability of the recreational industry. Nautical manufacturers (boats, kayaks, etc.) Fishing guides, tourism, brands of lures, rods, reels, dedicated clothing, etc... Thousands of jobs depend on this recreational fishing niche, and a whole section of this already fragile economy is in danger of collapsing.
Other possible routes
Here are just a few examples, and there are many others:
- Raise the legal sampling mesh, which is currently ridiculously low. At 30 cm, no fish has yet reproduced. A sample size for all, around 45/50, would be more in line with the biology of this species.
- A leisure quota, for example, 3 fish per angler per day, or a monthly quota. But a monthly quota would be more complicated to set up, and would require the introduction of a catch logbook (the sea permit should soon see the light of day, albeit under a different name...).
- The creation of sanctuary zones, totally closed to all forms of fishing.
- Not implementing the no-kill principle on this species, which does not tolerate decompression well, would mean sacrificing a large number of fish. This would be the opposite of the desired effect...
- Of course, more controls on the water or on arrival at the quayside would be a plus.
These are just a few ideas put down on paper. There are many others, and they're just common-sense ideas. It's time for decisions to be taken around a table where all interested parties are brought together to work towards protecting the resource. Let's put an end to all forms of corporatism where certain lobbies make the laws.
