@isleseafoods Thank you for pointing out who my colleague at the Angling Trust is… 👀. We’ll never stop compiling more data, especially with RSA now recognised as an equal stakeholder under the fisheries act.
@isleseafoods Challenge the studies when they are published if you wish. There’s so many ways to measure output that you aren’t grasping. We’ll see a greater number of FTE jobs supported, greater positive impacts on mental health and quite a surprising result around food security. 😉
@isleseafoods You don’t seem to grasp that we don’t need to quantify the total, only that the economic output is considerably bigger than the commercial sector, which can be done from just a small pool of anglers.
@isleseafoods In order to prove a greater economical output than commercial fishing, we don’t have to know the total numbers, we only have to evidence surpassing commercial economic output… which is very easily achieved.
@isleseafoods Once we prove a certain net level, your argument becomes “but you don’t know how many you’ve not identified”… Numbers which would only increase economic output for the recreational sector. It’s nice to know there’s so many anglers they’re hard to quantify. Such a big economy.
@isleseafoods We can and will prove bass, pollack, sole, flounder, cod, hound and so many more. It’s quite nice that the commercial fleet are underestimating this though, whilst the FMP’s all set a brilliant framework for what will happen when this data gets presented.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd No, it’s just one fishery with incredible angler spend. When we set quotas, we do it per species, so we should look at who gets the share of that species first based on best sustainable use of the resource compared to economic output. The FMP goals support maximum benefit.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd Whether you agree or disagree on the net economies, it’s abundantly clear that recreational delivers a far superior “per fish” economy. Just look at bluefin tuna and how a smaller recreational quota will deliver a massively higher economic output than the larger commercial quota.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd I see there’s a few replies since, but you do realise an activity being recreational still requires an industry to support that? Tackle, accommodation, guiding, media just for starters. Amazing how there’s more ways to make money from something than to kill it.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd The answer is ensuring we only have sustainable quotas in line with science, with the first part of any quota assigned to the recreational sector given that; it has a higher economic return per fish, it is a more sustainable practice and it contributes greatly to citizen science.
@isleseafoods@Mark_Spencer It’s substantially more than 2 or 3 times a year, but in any case, the overall economy throughout the year trounces the commercial sector. You’ve never got a hope of matching the value we can achieve per fish in the U.K. Shall we work through case studies on tuna? Bass? Hounds?
@isleseafoods@Mark_Spencer I’d consider the amount of trade bought to Drunmore via the evernts hosted out of Clashwhannon to benefit the rural community. Let’s get some socio-economics done… 👍
@isleseafoods@Mark_Spencer Ah the age old commercial outlook of recreational angling and its economic yield. There’s bait, tackle, services, pubs, accommodation and so much more besides. One multi day angling event trounces anything commercials can offer.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd @Mark_Spencer Generating a higher economic yield per fish is what gives the moral high ground. Learning from and educating to prevent repeating past errors is what gives the moral high ground. Being at the forefront of citizen science to recover stocks is what gives the moral high ground.
@isleseafoods @hannahsrudd @Mark_Spencer Must have taken generations of fantastically sustianable harvesting to leave key stocks receiving a 0 TAC reccomendation. 👀