Lobster pot marking: petition - response

The trouble at the moment is enforcement, the pain of trying to find the perpetrators ensures no one does anything. Other countries simply state that the appropriate authorities can recover any improperly marked gear and destroy it. In the UK they could sub contract the enforcement to local sailing clubs, that would soon see the place cleaned up
 
Giblets said:
Sadly if the (non-official) leisure boater deliberately removes and/or damages fishing gear then they are guilty of theft and/or criminal damage.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting leisure boaters do this . I think that would be wrong, plus we do not have time. I am sure that leisure boaters would prefer not to be involved in any backlash, such as violence either. An official appointed , such as harbour master or similar would have the weight of law in the same way that traffic wardens do. Thump another motorist & no one cares. Thump a traffic warden (& we all cheer) & the weight of the law comes down on one
 
maxi77 said:
The trouble at the moment is enforcement, the pain of trying to find the perpetrators ensures no one does anything. Other countries simply state that the appropriate authorities can recover any improperly marked gear and destroy it. In the UK they could sub contract the enforcement to local sailing clubs, that would soon see the place cleaned up
Click to expand...

Not the right people because you would have "little hitlers" playing god & we know that most sailing clubs have one or two. They may well act beyond their powers & do more harm than good & create unnecessary animosity. Whilst there is a problem we do not want to start a war.
Authorities need the correct powers in place so that they can act accordingly. That keeps the leisure fraternity reasonably happy with each other even though it is because one side is complaining about the misdemenours of the other
 
Guise said:
From the document in the link provided in the last paragraph of the Government reply quoted in post #1.
Click to expand...


With all this earnest discussion on enforcement - or lack of, I reckon if every yacht towed a paravane, then all pots would be marked very distinctly in no time flat. Where can one buy one:-P
 
Guise said:
From the document in the link provided in the last paragraph of the Government reply quoted in post #1.
Click to expand...

Fair comment but it does say that within the 0-6 nm range the marking of passive fishing has to be done to the requirements of the IFCA
That is not exactly a recommendation but a ruling.
One might deduce from that is pressure needs to be applied on the IFCA to ensure that they do have a rigid code in respect of marking actually in place. Once that has been established we need the RYA to try & get them to enforce it.
If it is not being carried out then the rules need to be examined to see if incorrectly marked gear can be removed & confiscated & by who.
There seems to be a gap in the regs between 6 & 12 NM offshore but 0-6NM is a start Further than 12Nm offshore the rules are very strict on the marking of passive fishing gear & the standards are clearly laid out
 
I have frequently pointed out that if these are actual fishermen in licenced registered boats then IFCA has a direct line of communication to them, as does the MMO, and are quite capable of bombarding them with advice and info, ask me how i know. Unfortunately I'm guessing these are pikeys selling to pub back doors. The QHM needs to be lobbied to do his job, an announcement of a period of grace, then a cleanup of problematic gear, probably the only way to get the perps' attention. Outside of QHM jurisdiction, well if I leave anything badly marked I expect it to get 'accidentally' cut off, or even accidentally cut off.
 
By the by, a Newlyn boat was hauled into Ireland and fined 9000 euros for not having his boat's name and PLN on markers. The boat was impounded for several days, the skipper was escorted 24hours a day, fortunately his escort knew a few decent pubs.
 
Daydream believer said:
Fair comment but it does say that within the 0-6 nm range the marking of passive fishing has to be done to the requirements of the IFCA
That is not exactly a recommendation but a ruling.
One might deduce from that is pressure needs to be applied on the IFCA to ensure that they do have a rigid code in respect of marking actually in place. Once that has been established we need the RYA to try & get them to enforce it.
If it is not being carried out then the rules need to be examined to see if incorrectly marked gear can be removed & confiscated & by who.
There seems to be a gap in the regs between 6 & 12 NM offshore but 0-6NM is a start Further than 12Nm offshore the rules are very strict on the marking of passive fishing gear & the standards are clearly laid out
Click to expand...

:encouragement:
 
Gear marking is only guidance within the 12nm so nothing to enforce. IFCAs can regulate in the 0 to 6nm zone and this could include gear marking requirements but it would, in reality, have to be ancillary to fisheries or conservation management. Some IFCAs do require gear to be marked in some areas where they have regulated fishing and this is enforced. In reality gear marking is an additional cost and extra hassle for fishermen so many don’t welcome it.
 
Daydream believer said:
Whether they like it or not is not the point. Poorly marked pots can be a danger to passing craft, so the issue should be resolved. That is why some of us signed the petition
Click to expand...

I agree entirely - just explaining why many are poorly marked not arguing in support of it.

Many inshore fishermen are working against the odds (poor quota allocation, loss of some species due to environmental and regulatory changes, days at sea lost to weather etc) and the cost of marking gear in accordance with the guidance is one that many would rather avoid. Some are fairly responsible and mark their gear so that you are in with a chance of seeing it and some are not and their gear is poorly marked and a hazard to navigation.
 
Greg2 said:
I agree entirely - just explaining why many are poorly marked not arguing in support of it.

Many inshore fishermen are working against the odds (poor quota allocation, loss of some species due to environmental and regulatory changes, days at sea lost to weather etc) and the cost of marking gear in accordance with the guidance is one that many would rather avoid. Some are fairly responsible and mark their gear so that you are in with a chance of seeing it and some are not and their gear is poorly marked and a hazard to navigation.
Click to expand...

TBH I don't think any of the above applies to or is of interest to the 'hobby or back-door-of-the-pub' fishermen who are the main culprits for laying such gear.
 
Giblets said:
TBH I don't think any of the above applies to or is of interest to the fishermen who are the main culprits for laying such gear.
Click to expand...

Considering the number of pots round our coasts that are badly marked, do you really believe it is really down to just the 'hobby or back-door-of-the-pub' fisherman?--- Somehow I am not in the least convinced.
 
Daydream believer said:
Considering the number of pots round our coasts that are badly marked, do you really believe it is really down to just the 'hobby or back-door-of-the-pub' fisherman?
Click to expand...

I said they were the main culprits not the only ones. TBH I think a registered fishing vessel (i.e. ones with a PLN on the boat) would be very foolish to lay dodgy or dangerous gear - that's not saying there aren't a few rouges out there as in any trade.
 
fisherman said:
....in which case, as i keep blathering, your avenue of communication is via IFCA and the MMO
Click to expand...

Try & keep up.
The discussion had moved on to one about whether the blame was attributable principally to commercial or private fishermen & whether commercial fishermen not being able to afford to mark pots properly being an excuse.
Sorry if the thread is moving in a direction not to your liking- but that happens
 
Well i'll try. Your point was that it's not all hobby pub back door folk, but also some commercial fishermen. Hence, you can lobby that sector via the endless communications they receive from IFCA and the MMO. I get texts all the time telling me to look at the latest email licence adjustment, reminding me to submit my returns etc etc. You could produce a piece of publicity about your concerns and have them distribute it, or ask them to help you make your issues known.
As to the cost, a bit of alkathene pipe shoved through a trawl float, or a bamboo stick attached to the standard issue bottle, neither here nor, as they say, there.
 
Giblets said:
Sadly if the (non-official) leisure boater deliberately removes and/or damages fishing gear then they are guilty of theft and/or criminal damage.
Click to expand...

Technically they would only be guilty of theft if they intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property, and of damage if they, well, damage it. As far as I am aware there is nothing within the law (unless someone can come up with some obscure piece of maritime or fishing legislation) that would prevent a concerned individual from recovering this apparently abandoned item that was clearly a danger to passing vessels and either handing it at the local police station (bound to make you popular with them....) or probably more appropriately the local harbour master. I suspect if this was done a few times then whoever is putting the unmarked pots down will either get tired of recovering their poorly marked equipment from the relevant place of safe keeping or go broke.....

I'm not advocating this course of action, I've already made my position clear that I don't see pots as something we as sailors can't deal with as we come across them, merely offering a view point on the legalities of removing them if you were so inclined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 50
Replies
2
Views
742
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top