/ 
From January to the end of March, the Parc naturel marin du golfe du Lion prohibits recreational wolf fishing during the breeding season, while maintaining professional fishing activities. Such a measure has no biological coherence. According to Ifremer publications, the main fishing pressure exerted on the species remains that of professional gear: trawls, nets and longlines.
This measure raises questions and misunderstandings, as catches from recreational fishing remain marginal on the scale of the overall stock.
Absent or inaccessible scientific data
The Park's communication claims that this ban is based on scientific data derived from several years of consultation. However, no precise, published and consultable study is cited. On the contrary, existing scientific literature clearly documents the effectiveness and impact of professional gear on wolves, including during the breeding season. Science-based regulation cannot be satisfied with unsourced arguments.
Here's part of my response to your comment on Le Parc's publication:
The scientific studies cited in your comment are neither cited, published nor accessible. On the contrary, there is a scientific literature of reference, in particular the doctoral thesis on the exploitation of sea bass (????????????? ??????) conducted by Dr. Manon Fritsch, marine biologist, PhD in biological oceanology (Universit� de Bretagne Occidentale, IFREMER).
Elements relating to the fishing pressure exerted mainly by professional gear (trawls, nets, longlines) are explicitly documented in :
? Chapter D, section II.3.3 "Effectiveness of gear on sea bass catches", p. 131 ;
? Chapter E, sections II.3 and II.4 "CPUE analyses by business line", p. 169 to 174.
A breach of equality before the environmental rule
The argument put forward by the Park that it would not be possible to act on professional fishing on a local scale is incorrect. Environmental law allows for the implementation of temporary or permanent territorial measures, applicable to all users.
Introducing a ban targeting only recreational fishing, without any objective biological justification, is a breach of equality that is difficult to defend.
A local economy systematically ignored
Recreational fishing is not a marginal activity. It structures a sustainable local economy: specialized shops, equipment manufacturers, boatyards, professional guides, accommodation and catering. To leave this economic impact out of the equation is to produce a one-sided analysis, to the detriment of a sector that is nevertheless committed to responsible practice.
The message from the Park and my reply
In its publication, the Park justifies the ban by the need to protect sea bass during a key reproduction period, while explaining, in a later commentary, that professional fishing falls under national or European decision-making scales, requiring more time.
I replied that there was no sound biological basis for this distinction. I pointed out that local regulatory levers exist, that fishing pressure is predominantly professional, and that an unfair measure divides users rather than protecting the resource sustainably.
If the Park feels that it cannot act immediately on commercial fishing, probably for political reasons, it should have waited until it was in a position to do so before applying comprehensive and coherent protection to the species in winter.
Dividing users weakens fish protection
Pitting professional and recreational fishermen against each other is a dead end. An effective measure must be clear, fair and scientifically sound. Without collective support, there will be no lasting respect for the rules, and no real protection for sea bass or wolffish. Resource preservation cannot be a two-speed process.
