Fishy business...

From the BBC:

The High Court is being asked to make a judgement over the question of who owns the fish in the sea.(1)

The government wants to reallocate unused quota worth more than £1m from big firms to small-scale fishermen. But the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations says the government cannot do this without its consent. It is asking the High Court to rule on whether the allocation of a quota confers a permanent right to fish yet to be caught.(2)

Fishing quotas are a licence to make a living from the seas. Without them you cannot legally catch and sell fish. UKAFPO members, mainly large-scale fishermen, currently control more than 90% of the overall fishing quota for England and Wales.(3)

And small-scale fishing round Britain's traditional ports has suffered because crews have been unable to negotiate control of enough of the quota to stay in business.(4)

1) That's easy, the fish belong to everybody and nobody.

Clearly fish have commercial value but there is also such a thing as over-fishing (usually blamed on the EU, Spanish fishermen etc, probably quite rightly) so somebody somewhere has to impose upper limits, and it is only a government which can do this (because they are the only ones who can enforce it and can take an objective view). Don't give me that crap about "private ownership", if there is a dispute between competing interests, the injured party will go running straight to the government to ask them to enforce their "property rights", as in the instant case.

2) The UK government, in the past, might or might not have allocated fishing licences to certain people, and these licences clearly have value (or else people wouldn't be fighting over them)...

3) ... and like all government-protected monopolies, they appear to have become concentrated in very few hands. This system clearly benefits some people at the expense of others, so why shouldn't the beneficiaires pay the government for the value of the protection?

4) So, having decided what a sensible upper limit is to prevent over-fishing, what's wrong with the government just auctioning off time-limited licences/quotas?

If the government is feeling lazy, they can just auction off the entire quota to the highest bidder (even though running an acution with only one potential bidder is a bit stupid), so the UKAFPO consortium ends up paying a lot and owning the lot. It's then up to UKAFPO to decide whether to catch that extra 800 tons or not, or indeed sub-licence them to smaller operators. Perhaps it's better if they stay in the sea?

Or the government can auction off per-single-boat licences with an upper quota for each so that it's easier for the little guys to get a look in. It's all just a question of maximising the auction proceeds , so the quotas will have to be valid for a reasonably length of time, five years or something. A bit like the 3G auctions or "Land Value Tax for the oceans..."

I don't see any big moral difference between the big guys and the little guys here, they use the same kind of boats and fishing techniues, if ten of them end up clubbing together to have a consortium with ten boats, that might lead to a more efficient operation overall, I do not know.

"Ee, it's not like when I were a lad..."*

The Metro celebrates a fisherman who has been in the business for seventy years:

"When I first started, it was very different. In those days, all you had to do to be a fisherman was get your register signed once a year. Now, you’ve got forms to fill in morning, noon and night."

* Obviously, he has a Cornish accent, not a Yorkshire accent, but it's difficult to imagine The Sketch with anything other than a Yorshire accent.

I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot less of this sort of thing, now that David Cameron is in charge...

From The Daily Mail:

A hospital worker who rescued 60 fish from their ornamental pond when it was being drained has claimed he is facing prosecution and a £1,000 fine. Clive Roberts saved the fish in an act of mercy by scooping them into a bucket to move them to his own garden pond. The 58-year-old said officials at the Environment Agency told him he needed to go through red tape to get a formal licence to move the goldfish.

Mr Roberts, who has maintained the pond at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff for 12 years, said: 'It is ridiculous. The pond was being drained for maintenance work - they would have died if I hadn't got them out. The plan was to return them in six weeks when the work is finished. But I've been told I could be prosecuted - it seems a bit unfair when all I was trying to do was help. I look after the fish at the hospital and now I'm looking after them at my own home.'

The Environment Agency say it is illegal to remove fish from their habitat without permission. Officials say the law is designed to prevent the spread of lethal fish diseases. Mr Roberts, a window cleaner, has been told he should have applied for a licence to move the fish.

'This was an emergency,' he said. 'The fish were already distressed by the falling water levels when I took them out. I maintain the pond at the hospital - it is a simple plastic-lined ornamental pond. Do gardeners break the law whey they remove fish from their back garden pond to clean it out?'

The fish are now in his garden pond in Adamsdown, Cardiff. Mr Roberts is worried he may be interviewed under caution by Environment Agency officials...

OK, you might think, this is just getting silly, maybe Mr Roberts imagined it all or something. Let's see what the EA have to say for themselves...

An Environment Agency spokesman said: 'Mr Roberts has not been arrested or charged with any offence and will not be interviewed under caution. Moving fish short distances between garden ponds is not an offence, as it does not present a significant risk to the environment. The Environment Agency does not investigate such incidents. In situations where fish need to be moved at short notice we can offer help and advice, and would be happy to advise the hospital on the best way to maintain a healthy stock of fish.'

Jesus wept. Any sane person would have assumed that jumped up quangocrats like this wouldn't have the power to have people arrested; the fact that they use this in their defence is telling enough. As to 'offering help and advice', it is Mr Roberts' job to look after fish, it is what he does for a living (and it's not exactly rocket science), he doesn't need 'help and advice' from some political appointee.

But of course, in iDave's Big Society, this sort of thing will never happen again. Ever.

... and then they came for the anglers ...

Article 47, EU Common Fisheries Policy:

Monitoring of Recreational Fisheries

a, Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State.

b, Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.

c, Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The Member States concerned shall establish a share from such quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.

d, The marketing of catches from a recreational fishery shall be prohibited except for philanthropic purposes.

UKIP have set up a petition against this lunacy, sign here.

"Scotland to host fisheries talks"

The ministers responsible for fishing from England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are meeting up for a chat later today.

Well, whoopie-f***ing-doo, as ever.

Isn't this, er, all regulated from Brussels nowadays?