In reply to David Fraser’s letter [received from
Mark Carter on 17 Dec 2010]
The interest in fishing – and in particular scallop dredging – has been lifted out into the public arena and for that I am grateful.
I would also like to thank David Fraser for his view from a fisherman's angle, and for the constructive way in which he has delivered it.
All too often when dealing with some of the fishing associations, we are left with the feeling of achieving nothing, of being bullied. At some of the meetings that I have attended I observed time-wasting tactics, tactics that are renewed when new chairpersons are in place, resulting in old ground being covered again, and again – a little like scallop dredging.
David raises some good points which need to be addressed. But here we have a dilemma: the subject matter is vast, there are numerous differing opinions and – most of all – we still do not fully understand all of the ecosystem interactions. We do, however, know how important they are, not only to the environment but in turn to us as individuals.
David and I have some similar ideas and thoughts. The way forward could be over a beer or even in a public debate? I’m open to these ideas as long as the meeting is constructive.
I have every faith in David’s approach, and respect for his views but, having experienced the actions of some of some in the industry, I’m always cautious.
For now, let me reply to a few points raised by David Fraser:
• “Getting involved and meetings”:
Here we are in complete agreement: the number of meetings, consultations, conferences etc is nothing more than overwhelming, exhausting, more than any normal individuals can cope with.
One thing is very true: these meetings need to be attended and not – as so often seen – limited to a few.
We are all stakeholders, fish are a public resource, management meetings should/must be open and accountable.
•
Fishing gear:
As a former blacksmith I’m always interested in comments regarding the construction of fishing gear; spring-loaded tooth bars, wheels etc. It is always difficult when writing in general to cover all designs like the locally used Newhaven Dredge, but one matter remains: dragging heavy metal structures over delicate, vulnerable seabed species can only result in one outcome: destruction.
I’ve never suggested that scallop fishermen would actively search out rocky reefs in order to drag expensive gear over them. However, advancements in gear construction and electronic wizardry enables fishing to take place right next to, or right on top of these rocky reefs, some of which have been protected as in the Firth of Lorn. It is these advancements that allow for “mistakes” to occur without causing major damage to gear – while some of the species on the reefs may face a different fate.
I have dived and I do hold a diving qualification; but I would not consider myself a diver as suggested. I have, however, studied marine science and water flows from several different perspectives. It is not plausible to compare wave and or storm action, and the raising of sediments or re-sedimentation as it is known to scallop dredging. Far more factors come into play – including bathometry, morphology, amphidomes, the Coriolis effect and interference in short tides, underwater mountains, depth and fetch.
• “Misconception” regarding scallop dredgers:
There is much evidence showing the effects of scallop dredging, from side-scan sonars' to divers' photographic records. As for whether this is considered “damaging”, I’m not going to go over old ground, but I too have friends that are scallop divers and they are united in their opinion regarding the damage done by the dredge.
• “[Scallops have been] stripped by other divers”:
The inference here is that divers are responsible for the decline in the Firth of Lorn. We could get into the “chicken and egg” situation regarding dredge versus diver and responsibility, but just one point: divers don’t do the same – if any – level of habitat damage.
• Isle of Man:
I, too, love the Isle of Man. I have family living there, although I cannot afford to go regularly enough to join a golf club! The Manx government does appear to be leaps and bounds ahead of the UK in terms of protecting its waters, even when under bullying pressure from the Scottish Minister regarding the scallop fisheries. With a 100-fold increase in scallop biomass, what more proof do we need that closing areas WORKS???
Those interested can find more information here:
http://www.arrancoast.com/symp_pdf/isle_of_man_mpas.pdf (a presentation recently given by the Isle of Man government Representative at the Arran Conference)
http://www.arrancoast.com/
http://www.isleofman.com/index.aspx (type "scallops" into the internal web search)
• Sustainability:
I have always said that the term “sustainability” needs to be defined, and David's comment, “This whole business cycle is based on a natural resource which rejuvenates every year, and is therefore SUSTAINABLE”, proves this. Such activities only suggest that nature's resilience has enabled nature to cope with pressures to date. In fact, some data would suggest otherwise.
•“Fisheries of last resort”:
The comment, “I firmly believe that areas benefit from being fished and then left to regenerate. Scallop fishing does not wipe out fish stocks, nor crab stocks, nor lobster, nor prawn”, is worrying. It fails to address the bigger picture, that of “keystone” species, or “K”-select and “R”-select species: part of what we do understand about marine ecosystems is that keystone species may be pivotal within their environment; removal may cause major damage to the entire current ecosystem.
“K”-select – I call them the “Constants” – provide for a diverse, stable system. “R”-select species are unwanted ones that go "Rampant" and are capable of rushing into a devastated region and re-colonise it, altering the status quo.
Finally, what about the cod, the herring – need I go on? It has been said that fishing prawns and crabs is “last resort”. If we continue as we have, what’s going to be left? plankton and jellyfish?
• Re-introduction of the “Three Mile Limit":
This concept is not new, it is a “re-"introduction. What did the mobile sector do pre–1984? Fishing continued.
•
"Ten-metre boats and gales":
With modern technology, few inshore fishermen need be caught out even if outside a three-mile limit. Mobile fishing vessels tend to be powerful; three miles at ten knots takes just 18 minutes – usually plenty of time to retreat from any gales – and some vessels will be able to go faster. Even those that can only achieve 6 knots would be in sheltered waters within half an hour.
• “Chase us out of our own backyard”:
Personally, I have never had any intention to chase anyone out of their own “backyard”. Yet it is this concept of “ours” that could be at the root of the problem as it is not “your" backyard: we all own the fish stocks; we all have rights to fish; and we all are the guardians of our future, of the kind of legacy we leave to coming generations.
*****
See also:
•
C.O.A.S.T. – December 2010 Newsletter,
Damage limitation
The recent ‘scallop war’ between the Manx and Scottish governments is fundamentally a battle of credibility. And a quick look at recent political events demonstrates there is one clear loser.
