In the article “Missing the big picture on red steenbras catches” (DD, December 10), Jessica Greenstone, a WWF-SA marine fellow at the UCT Marine Research Institute, criticised a court judgment favouring recreational fishermen.
The article was well written and would’ve appeared credible to laymen unacquainted with the facts. But it was essentially propaganda and to their discredit, WWF agreed with the article.
To have written the article with the authority of an institution such as the WWF from a scientific platform and to have criticised the judgment so emphatically, the writer should have studied the court papers and the detail of events and submissions leading up to the ban on fishing for red steenbras.
The applicants in this case, Border Deepsea Angling Association (BDSAA), Gary Thompson and I have been at the forefront of marine conservation.
BDSAA created the marine reserves off our coastline as voluntary areas in 1980 and was instrumental in having them officially gazetted then upgraded into full marine protected areas.
Resulting from the officially-sanctioned commercial slaughter of red steenbras in the 1980s and 90s, we’ve campaigned since 1993 for greater protection for red steenbras, in particular to have them de-commercialised, maintaining they should never have been allowed to be commercially plundered in the first place.
We wanted these fish protected so we could continue catching them in a sustainable manner.
To some people prejudiced against hunting or fishing this seems a contradiction. A scientist involved in this debate once stated publicly “you can’t protect something which you want to kill.” But that’s where they are so wrong. It’s precisely because recreational hunters and fishermen want to hunt or fish for species that we protect them. No species worldwide is in danger of extinction through recreational hunting or fishing.
On the contrary, there are many species which are multiplying through the efforts of hunters to protect them – so they can continue to hunt them.
Some of the worst propaganda in environmental protection is the misuse of the term “endangered species” to deliberately confuse the distinction between populations of species and the species as a whole to achieve nefarious objectives, such as banning hunting.
Populations of rhino are extinct in almost all their former ranging territory in Africa due to human population pressure and illegal commercial killing. However there are sufficient populations of rhino existing in southern Africa for them to be genetically sustainable and therefore in no danger of extinction. But the animal rightists will have us believe the species is in danger, therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to hunt them.
So it is with red steenbras.
By the late 1990s it had become clear that populations of red steenbras had been hammered by legal and illegal commercial fishing.
Typically due to “too little , too late”, legislators belatedly passed regulations limiting the catches of red steenbras to one per person per day with a closed season during the spawning months of September to November.
The number of commercial line-fish licences were drastically reduced.
By the early 2000s, legal commercial fishing for the species had all but ceased as it was too costly to target them for the catch limit of one per person. As a result the species rebounded in our region.
However, increased catches couldn’t be recorded as quotas were limited.
Because of the rebounding of the species, illegal commercial effort increased. These people fraudulently use recreational fishing licences to catch and illegally sell fish under the smokescreen of legal fish sales.
Concerned about the slaughter and despairing about the incompetence in policing, scientists called for a complete ban on catching, citing the increased effort of “illegal recreational fishing”.
We maintained what they termed “illegal recreational fishing” was in fact “illegal commercial fishing” involving the fraudulent use of recreational fishing licences. We responded with more urgent calls for longer closed seasons, a ban on commercial catching and selling of the species and more effective policing – but to no avail.
There is a marine scientific principle “catch per unit effort” (CPUE) used to determine fish stocks. This correlates the number of anglers and time spent catching with the number or mass of fish caught. It’s not an exact science, but it is an accepted method for broadly determining stocks. When the CPUE baseline for red steenbras was originally determined, catches were unlimited, there were many more boats fishing for them and no closed season.
To back their prejudiced and dogmatic views, certain scientists dug up the latest legal commercial CPUE statistics of red steenbras catches and predictably found this had declined by 99%, called “panic stations” and bamboozled naive Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) officials and the minister to legislate a complete ban on red steenbras catches. But we knew this to be untrue because we were catching those fish far more easily than before.
It’s simple to see the fallacy in their argument. The regulations alone would’ve reduced the CPUE by over 90%. Therefore the regulations caused the drop in fishing effort which caused the drop in CPUE, not necessarily a decline in fish numbers. We pointed this out, but no-one listened and the total ban was enacted based on a scientific untruth.
During the process of deliberating this action, information was requested from DAFF as to why they considered the species to be so endangered that a total ban, including recreational fishing, was justified. For nearly two years they refused to supply this information.
Even when the Promotion of Access to Information Act was invoked, it was still unconstitutionally denied.
As a result a judicial review of this legislation was applied for. Thankfully a perceptive judge decided to only set aside the ban on recreational fishing and not for commercial fishing too. She also did not make legislation, but referred the matter back to the legislating authorities for review, taking into consideration the principles embodied in her judgment.
We’ll be using that opportunity to again call for better protection for red steenbras involving inter alia more effective policing of and sentences imposed for illegal fishing, simply because we want more and bigger fish for our grandkids and their kids to catch.
The judge essentially ruled you can’t use untruths, illogic, outdated research and unconstitutional methods to enact legislation. Greenstone appears to maintain that the means justifies the end and appallingly, WWF agrees with her. And they have the effrontery to criticise the judge for her “heavy-handed” decision and for “missing the big picture”.
If species like rhino and red steenbras ever do become extinct it will be because of the misguided efforts of such people, not because of recreational hunters.
John Rance is an environmental officer for the Border Deep Sea Angling Association (affiliated to SADSAA)
Shine a sharp light on red steenbras ‘big picture’
The article was well written and would’ve appeared credible to laymen unacquainted with the facts. But it was essentially propaganda and to their discredit, WWF agreed with the article.
To have written the article with the authority of an institution such as the WWF from a scientific platform and to have criticised the judgment so emphatically, the writer should have studied the court papers and the detail of events and submissions leading up to the ban on fishing for red steenbras.
The applicants in this case, Border Deepsea Angling Association (BDSAA), Gary Thompson and I have been at the forefront of marine conservation.
BDSAA created the marine reserves off our coastline as voluntary areas in 1980 and was instrumental in having them officially gazetted then upgraded into full marine protected areas.
Resulting from the officially-sanctioned commercial slaughter of red steenbras in the 1980s and 90s, we’ve campaigned since 1993 for greater protection for red steenbras, in particular to have them de-commercialised, maintaining they should never have been allowed to be commercially plundered in the first place.
We wanted these fish protected so we could continue catching them in a sustainable manner.
To some people prejudiced against hunting or fishing this seems a contradiction. A scientist involved in this debate once stated publicly “you can’t protect something which you want to kill.” But that’s where they are so wrong. It’s precisely because recreational hunters and fishermen want to hunt or fish for species that we protect them. No species worldwide is in danger of extinction through recreational hunting or fishing.
On the contrary, there are many species which are multiplying through the efforts of hunters to protect them – so they can continue to hunt them.
Some of the worst propaganda in environmental protection is the misuse of the term “endangered species” to deliberately confuse the distinction between populations of species and the species as a whole to achieve nefarious objectives, such as banning hunting.
Populations of rhino are extinct in almost all their former ranging territory in Africa due to human population pressure and illegal commercial killing. However there are sufficient populations of rhino existing in southern Africa for them to be genetically sustainable and therefore in no danger of extinction. But the animal rightists will have us believe the species is in danger, therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to hunt them.
So it is with red steenbras.
By the late 1990s it had become clear that populations of red steenbras had been hammered by legal and illegal commercial fishing.
Typically due to “too little , too late”, legislators belatedly passed regulations limiting the catches of red steenbras to one per person per day with a closed season during the spawning months of September to November.
The number of commercial line-fish licences were drastically reduced.
By the early 2000s, legal commercial fishing for the species had all but ceased as it was too costly to target them for the catch limit of one per person. As a result the species rebounded in our region.
However, increased catches couldn’t be recorded as quotas were limited.
Because of the rebounding of the species, illegal commercial effort increased. These people fraudulently use recreational fishing licences to catch and illegally sell fish under the smokescreen of legal fish sales.
Concerned about the slaughter and despairing about the incompetence in policing, scientists called for a complete ban on catching, citing the increased effort of “illegal recreational fishing”.
We maintained what they termed “illegal recreational fishing” was in fact “illegal commercial fishing” involving the fraudulent use of recreational fishing licences. We responded with more urgent calls for longer closed seasons, a ban on commercial catching and selling of the species and more effective policing – but to no avail.
There is a marine scientific principle “catch per unit effort” (CPUE) used to determine fish stocks. This correlates the number of anglers and time spent catching with the number or mass of fish caught. It’s not an exact science, but it is an accepted method for broadly determining stocks. When the CPUE baseline for red steenbras was originally determined, catches were unlimited, there were many more boats fishing for them and no closed season.
To back their prejudiced and dogmatic views, certain scientists dug up the latest legal commercial CPUE statistics of red steenbras catches and predictably found this had declined by 99%, called “panic stations” and bamboozled naive Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) officials and the minister to legislate a complete ban on red steenbras catches. But we knew this to be untrue because we were catching those fish far more easily than before.
It’s simple to see the fallacy in their argument. The regulations alone would’ve reduced the CPUE by over 90%. Therefore the regulations caused the drop in fishing effort which caused the drop in CPUE, not necessarily a decline in fish numbers. We pointed this out, but no-one listened and the total ban was enacted based on a scientific untruth.
During the process of deliberating this action, information was requested from DAFF as to why they considered the species to be so endangered that a total ban, including recreational fishing, was justified. For nearly two years they refused to supply this information.
Even when the Promotion of Access to Information Act was invoked, it was still unconstitutionally denied.
As a result a judicial review of this legislation was applied for. Thankfully a perceptive judge decided to only set aside the ban on recreational fishing and not for commercial fishing too. She also did not make legislation, but referred the matter back to the legislating authorities for review, taking into consideration the principles embodied in her judgment.
We’ll be using that opportunity to again call for better protection for red steenbras involving inter alia more effective policing of and sentences imposed for illegal fishing, simply because we want more and bigger fish for our grandkids and their kids to catch.
The judge essentially ruled you can’t use untruths, illogic, outdated research and unconstitutional methods to enact legislation. Greenstone appears to maintain that the means justifies the end and appallingly, WWF agrees with her. And they have the effrontery to criticise the judge for her “heavy-handed” decision and for “missing the big picture”.
If species like rhino and red steenbras ever do become extinct it will be because of the misguided efforts of such people, not because of recreational hunters.
John Rance is an environmental officer for the Border Deep Sea Angling Association (affiliated to SADSAA)
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos