Sea fisheries - future catching policy: consultation analysis

5. Pots and Creels (Q7-11)

5.1. The consultation paper asked respondents to consider a variety of limits to pots and creels. Questions on this topic ranged from general questions as to whether or not this should be implemented, to technical questions on where, and based on what criteria, creel limits should be implemented. This section also covers questions on additional measures that could be taken in managing the creel sector.

Q7. Restrictions on number of creels

Overview

5.2. In total 140 individuals and 31 organisations answered Question 7. Overall, 85% agreed there should be limits set on the number of creels that can be deployed by a fishing vessel. The level of agreement did not differ much between individuals (84%) and organisations (87%).

5.3. 64 individuals and 29 organisations provided open text answers to this question. Many of these answers pre-empted discussions in Q8 and Q9 about how limits should be set, be that geographically or by boat/crew characteristics. Therefore, these themes are discussed in the relevant sections below. This section dissects the emerging themes from the remaining answers.

In favour of implementation

5.4. Among the majority of answers that favoured the implementation of creel limits a few themes emerged. Firstly, there were wide-spread beliefs of overfishing, reduced stocks, and the excessive use of creels. Many respondents also stated that they had observed large increases in the number of creels. Furthermore, entanglements were cited by a few respondents as a problem.

"It is well known that excessive creel effort has developed in some areas. An analysis of UK wide stocks recently showed that a surprising number of shellfish stocks are presently over-exploited (Fox, C. J., 2022. Scoring the status of UK shared and national fish stocks around the time of Brexit. Mar Policy 135:104851)." [Organisation, Scientific Body/Academia]

"I sailed right down the East coast of Scotland and areas up to 60m offshore are entirely occupied by creel lines/creels. It's completely unsustainable" [Individual]

5.5. Additionally, arguments were put forward that involving communities in setting limits could empower communities and small-scale fishing operations while also reducing the ability of larger boats to overfish. Arguments to involve communities ranged from maintaining the community fabric, involving local fishermen for their knowledge of sustainable fish stocks in their area and the importance of fishing for the local economy and employment levels.

"Small scale operators are more likely to be aware of what a sustainable effort is in their locale. Larger operations with higher overheads are less likely to be concerned by overfishing." [Individual]

"Small inshore fishing is an industry which can put money back into the local economy - there is no place for the destruction of an industry which probably has a great interest in managing its local resources to placate larger interests." [Individual]

"As to the specifics of how fishing opportunities are distributed across the fleet, this should be determined by a management body involving fishers and other interests which, for inshore fisheries, should be as local as practicable. [...] This response takes into account that certain static gears have low energy use, low stock impact and low biodiversity impact, and high added value, and a high contribution to the local economy and employment. This is especially so in inshore areas where the cost of entry and operation are relatively low. For these reasons they have the potential to make an important contribution to achieving these and other goals set out in the SFMS 2020-2030." [Organisation, Other]

5.6. Additionally, a specific example of RIFGs collaborating with academics to limit pots was raised by a public sector organisation:

"In the Outer Hebrides, through the Regional Inshore Fisheries Group, in partnership with St. Andrews University and with good support from the industry, a pot limitation scheme has been introduced in the area. Over 140 vessels are now participating in the scheme and hopefully the benefits of increased Catch Per Unit Effort will be seen in future years. In addition, over 40 static gear vessels have been fitted with a tracking device transmitting the location of the vessel. This has been developed alongside a mobile phone app enabling recording of catch quantities and discards. By combining vessel track and catch data this will build up an accurate picture of where and when fishing is taking place and how often with a view to calculation catch per unit effort in the static gear sector. This initiative demonstrates the commitment the island's fishers have for participation in sustainable, well-managed fisheries. Again, it cannot be overstated how significantly this project was developed with strong support from the creel sector." [Organisation, Public Sector]

5.7. As was the case in the Scottish Government's 2013 consultation on the introduction of controls to nephrops, crab and lobster creel fisheries, many supporters of creel limits made it clear that they only believed limits would be effective if implemented alongside spatial management and other fishing management strategies.

"This should be considered as a measure under a wider action plan to improve management and sustainability of the fleet and its target stocks." [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

Opposed to implementation

5.8. The minority that opposed the imposition of creel limits expressed a desire for other methods that they viewed as more effective, such as banning or regulating parlour pots/boats, setting catch limits, and improving buoy marking and identification:

"If no parlour pots within 6-miles boats couldn't work to much gear. This method would regulate the amount of gear on its own" [Individual]

"A boat can only hold so many creels safely. However, more emphasis should be put on buoy marking and identification." [Individual]

5.9. Additionally, a detailed response highlighted the differences in species caught by creels which made a blanket approach inappropriate, as shown by the following excerpt:

"The rationale behind the need for creel limits and the appropriate limits varies between areas and sectors. For example, brown crab and lobster fisheries utilise similar creels and for most intents and purposes those creels are interchangeable. [...]

The situation is quite distinct in nephrops fisheries, there are similarities in that there is extensive competition for access to fishing opportunity. However, there is no shortage of nephrops creel ground and the only limiting factor in the potential expansion of this fishery is gear conflict caused by the lack of spatial management between the nephrops trawl and creel fleets." [Organisation, Other]

5.10. One respondent expressed the view that creeling is a relatively harmless way of fishing in sensitive areas and should be encouraged rather than restricted further.

5.11. Another view raised was that any limit that was set that would require vessels to lift pots/creels would have to be carefully considered and avoid requiring vessels to go to sea in poor weather to lift pots and creels.

Q8. Creel limits according to geographical area

Overview

5.12. In light of work conducted by the rIFG network demonstrating differences in opinions on creel limits but broad agreement on the need for a tailored regional approach rather than blanket restrictions, the consultation paper asked respondents to consider whether setting creel limits by geographical area would be appropriate.

5.13. In total 123 individuals and 27 organisations provided a closed answer to Question 8. Overall, 80% of respondents agreed that creel limits should be set according to geographical area. Individuals and organisations held broadly the same rates of agreement.

5.14. 56 individuals and 30 organisations provided open text answers to this question. In many of these open text answers respondents clarified their agreement with the proposal by stating that they agreed that creel limits should be set according to geographical area, but not necessarily that rIFGs should be used as these geographical areas.

Views on creel limits according to geographical area

5.15. Firstly, several respondents argued that the boundaries should be decided by scientific data on stocks, ecosystems/species present (including number of juvenile fish), historical fishing effort and historical catch data. A small minority additionally mentioned measures such as depth and number of washed up creels as measures. A few respondents also highlighted that data on stocks could be used to create nursery areas to protect and replenish stocks.

"The limits should be set based on scientific data. This will provide a fair approach to all areas, if not each region could be subject to local lobbying and influence. This would mean an unfair distribution of creels, rather than one fair standard of how many are allowed. [Individual]

"Yes, if creel limits are to be introduced, they should be set according to geographical area. However, these areas should not be determined by RIFG boundaries, which have little to do with eco-system criteria, and more to do with funding constraints from central government. Instead, creel number limits should be determined by the boundaries of areas which are designated as 'creel-only' (i.e. where mobile gears are excluded)." [Organisation, Conservation]

"An area should be defined by historical catch data, present fishing effort, and by an overview of ecological importance - i.e., is the area more important as an untouched nursery area than as a fishery." [Individual]

5.16. Of those who engaged specifically with the idea of using rIFGs as boundaries, many suggested the rIFGs were too big, particularly on the West coast. Amongst those more supportive of using rIFGs, agreement tended to be either unexplained or caveated by statements about rIFGs being a good place to start but other localised measures and boundaries should be used in conjunction.

"Needs to be at a much lower spatial resolution than rIFG though as the West Coast IFG literally covers the whole West Coast." [Individual]

"Communities with areas deemed to be exceptionally busy with creels should be allowed to manage their local fisheries, possibly through the IFG system, but they must also be allowed to introduce measures for other sectors too, something which the IFGs so far have failed completely to do." [Individual]

5.17. A minority of open responses opposed the proposal on the grounds that they viewed fishermen as best able to comment on stocks and highlighted the mobile and dredge sector as the major offenders when it came to unsustainable fishing.

Q9. How creel limits should be dictated

Quantitative analysis

5.18. The consultation asked respondents if they thought creel limits should be dictated by vessel length, engine power, crew size, or another metric.

5.19. In total, question 9 received 151 closed responses – 123 from individuals and 28 from organisations. The table below shows the popularity of each suggested approach (note that respondents could select more than one) to dictating creel limits both overall and amongst individuals and organisations.

Table 5.1 Responses to Q9

Respondent Type	Overall length of vessel	Kilowatt engine power	Per fisher	Another metric	None of the above
Individual	20%	7%	54%	7%	23%
Organisation	29%	7%	21%	29%	29%
Total	21%	7%	48%	11%	24%

Another metric

5.20. Among those who suggested another metric be used to dictate creel limits a wide variety of suggestions were put forward. A general theme emerged around the need for metrics to be area specific, echoing calls in question 8 for consideration of things like stock level, creel fishing effort and sea-bed metric area. Less consistent were attitudes towards imposing limits on specific boats. Some suggested metrics included using track record, environmental impact, daily capacity, licence information etc.

5.21. Overall, 33 Individuals and 25 organisations provided additional comments clarifying their response to question 9. Echoing responses to question 8 and the suggested alternative metrics listed above, the most consistent suggestion among these open responses was that limits be dictated by stocks and sustainable fishing.

"Understanding potting intensity thresholds is vital to ensure pot limits are set at sustainable levels.

In addition, lessons should be learned from areas such as Northumberland IFCA who have relatively recently applied a pot limitation of 800 pots per boat. Adaptive fisheries management plans should be developed regionally with fishermen, scientists, conservationists, Government and the local community. Plans should include provisions for long term monitoring and a just transition to account for costs associated with reduction in pots. A scenario where pot limits are introduced inshore might lead to displacement of effort offshore. This should be avoided, and efforts applied to ensure that pot limitation means a reduction on the number of pots and overall effort in Scottish waters." [Organisation, Conservation]

Views on specific options

5.22. In relation to the specific options listed in question 9, the overall length of vessel and engine capabilities being used as measurements was criticized by some because it could give a monopoly to larger boats or encourage people to simply buy larger boats or change their engines.

5.23. Similarly, the suggestion to dictate limits by fisher was viewed to have the same problems of simply encouraging expansion of crews and would be difficult to monitor.

"Needs to be linked to licence, I think. If by vessel size there's the likelihood that larger vessels will be bought." [Individual]

"Size of engine, boat, fisherman - should not even be a consideration- these are all decided by purse strings - tradition etc." [Organisation, Conservation]

5.24. Finally, a few suggested that a combination of the metrics provided in question 9 and information on stocks in specific areas be used to dictate limits.

Q10. Restrictions on the Pots and Creels Segment

Overview

5.25. In light of entanglements and accidental bycatch of other species, the consultation asked respondents to consider if limits should be set on string length for the pot and creels segment.

5.26. Question 10 received 136 closed responses – 115 from individuals and 21 from organisations. Overall, 68% of respondents were in favour of a restriction on string length. This was largely driven by support from individuals, 70% of which supported this measure compared to 52% among responding organisations.

5.27. 56 open text responses were provided, 28 from individuals and 28 from organisations.

In support of restrictions

5.28. The open responses were varied, reflecting the figures above. Amongst those who support restrictions on string length, one or both of two main reasons were provided. Firstly, the fact that this could reduce entanglements/gear conflict. Secondly, there were general references to sustainability and protection of wildlife/stocks that this would provide.

"Whales and other cetaceans can get entangled in the strings" [Individual]

"To avoid entanglements and rope breaking up leading to more plastic pollution" [Individual]

Opposition to restrictions

5.29. Of those who opposed this restriction, this was largely because it was deemed as irrelevant if creel limits are already in place. Respondents of this view did not agree that it would impact sustainability and found that entanglements would be better reduced by using different gear or through spatial management. A few negative answers also highlighted issues in the enforcement of this measure.

"No. The length of string has no impact on the (already very low) level of bycatch and discards from this segment. If the string length restrictions are being proposed in order to address gear conflict issues, then they should only be introduced as part of a package of measures which also reduces the most unsustainable fisheries (rather than the most sustainable) – most obviously through the introduction of spatial management measures to exclude mobile gears from where they do harm to the ecosystem and to other marine users." [Organisation, Conservation]

5.30. A minority of 'on the fence' open answers put forward that this would need to be a regional/local level decision, or be dictated by scientific data, or would need to be part and parcel of various measures. One response suggested a value for this limit.

"Setting the limit of 60 per string will probably be accepted by most creel boats under the 10M category." [Organisation, Other]

Q11. Additional management measures

5.31. The consultation asked respondents to provide open answers suggesting other measures that could be implemented to improve the management of the creel sector.

5.32. 95 respondents (66 individuals and 29 organisations) suggested additional management measures to improve management of the creel sector. There were a number of suggestions and the most popular are summarised below.

5.33. Overall escape panels were viewed favourably by many respondents to protect wildlife. Soak times were also viewed favourably but there were concerns about how bad weather would be accounted for to ensure fishermen did not put themselves in danger to ensure they did not exceed soak times.

"Escape panels are an effective means of reducing bycatch of sub-MCRS target species. Although survivability of target-species discards in pot/creel fisheries may be high, sorting can lead to limb loss, which has a negative impact on the value of those individuals in subsequent season." [Organisation, Public Sector]

"Yes soak time is important- not to leave the pots down for longer than 12-24 hours, many more species than the intended get trapped in the pots and entangled in the lines- causing death." [Organisation, Conservation]

"[Organisation] view is that soak time and escape panels are the main measures affecting catch and for that they should be examined. There should be though an acceptance that there will be exceptions. I.e., in velvet crab fisheries escape panels are detrimental." [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

"All of the measures should ideally be contained within an effective FMP. The requirement for escape panels and soak time restrictions should be based on data related to fishing mortality and stock abundance. There has been coverage in the media recently around entanglements issues in West coast fisheries, so it seems timely to address the issue through stakeholder engagement." [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

5.34. As noted throughout this section, calls for creel limits generally, improved spatial management, improved regulation of parlour pots, a ban on trawlers, dredgers and gillnets, and improved regulation of unlicensed boats were repeated.

5.35. Beyond these repetitions, the most common additional suggested measure was the introduction of weighted lines between creels. Ropeless creels and line markers/ pingers were also suggested based on international use of these tools. However, it was noted that ropeless creel are an emerging technology.

"In areas where there is a higher likelihood of entanglement issues we should restrict the further expansion of the creel sector by capping the gear in those areas at present amounts and, if entanglement issues persist, consider a reduction in creel densities and/or if we wish to increase creel densities in such areas we should consider the introduction of further entanglement mitigation measures like negatively buoyant ropes, single ends or ropeless systems etc" [Organisation, Fishing Organisation]

"Restraining excess creel effort would assist in reducing entanglement risks simply because there would be less gear on the ground. Ropeless creels are being trialled, especially in North America, but there are considerable issues of costs and reliability still to be solved. Limiting creel effort within especially high entanglement risk areas could be one approach as an interim measure while more technical approaches, such as ropeless creels, are developed." [Organisation, Scientific Body/Academia]

"Following an increase in whale entanglements in South African waters, swift action of the South African government led to implementation of sinking groundlines, ropeless/on demand instead of endlines and spatial closures and resulted in a reductions in the number of whale entanglements (Daniel, 2021)." [Organisation, Conservation]

5.36. Finally, a minority made suggestions unrelated to the physical creel lines/ropes, instead opting for replenishing stocks by releasing berry carrying crustaceans or instituting limited time closures of certain sea areas.