Dear Editor...Traditional Line Fishery, Uncontrolled Beast or Cash Cow?

I came across this letter which from what I can tell hasn't made its way onto paper yet and proves to be a very insightful perspective on the line fishery, in general. I had to clean up the language a little but I feel the point is still adequately presented.

Dear Editor,

This fishery is grossly mismanaged in terms of its resource demographics. The department through blatant ignorance has allowed this industry to grow into an uncontrollable beast.

One of the effort controlling factors, vessel size, and the departments lack of economic viability studies is in actual fact its greatest downfall.

The latest outcry of line fishers to the improper allocation should be a wake up call to all managing this industry. Not only to the departmental clowns but also to all the right holders that have ridden this fat cow for years, raped the resources, reaped the benefits and stand around crying because they cant get organized and refuse to adhere to legislation or at the very least try change it. (Read all about the issues surrounding the towing of the line fisher's ski boats in my previous blog titled: Somehow Towing The Line...I mean Boat.)

How does the line fishery make money? How do you do this? Simple.... catch more fish than anyone else. So the guy with the biggest, fastest boat with the most crew fundamentally makes the most, yes…. Not anymore.

The fleet has reached critical mass in terms of vessel size. A large portion of operators now own 25 to 28 foot vessels that seems to be the boundary of where they are prepared to illegally tow and what can be accommodated in the harbors. So know they are forced lie later and later in the day to do volume. This hinders the small entrepreneur and small scale subsistence fisher as the fish prices fall to stupidly low prices where the small boats up to 6 man, cannot even cover there expenses.

The hawkers love it! WHY…? On any given day when there is ok fish, the first few boats get R25 to R30 for 500 fish, the middle boats just cover their day at R20 and hey presto the fat cats come in with 1000 and 2000 and flood the market down to R15. Then all you need is the one or two hawkers that intimidate the show and that price can drop to R10. What chance does the poor single engine guy have… Absolutely nothing at all …. Giving him a right to fish a 4 man or 5 man boat or permit is like an oasis mirage in the desert. Sounds good, looks good but not worth it at all.

Why are hawkers up in arms, SIMPLE… check the revenue from snoek…. When last did you buy a snoek at under R35? Friends of mine regularly pay up to R70 off bakkies… Granted there is high spoilage but someones making big bucks …. Its time the snoek industry owns up and comes clean, its no use hiding behind the skirts of the poor fisherman of the traditional line fishery.

Why do you think the crews are up in arms…. That guy that spent his whole pension made it easy for me, I didn’t have a care in the world except get to a harbor, I buy R200's worth of  tackle and I get half of what I catch. On a day that can be nothing…. Yes but generally in the order of R500 to R1000 per day. Never mind the days when we get the “geluk” where salaries are as high as R2000 per day when some of the tougher guys take risks and force the elements.

On  a typical snoek run in ST Helena that lasts 6 weeks, moderate operators catch over 1000 fish a day at R20. Crewmen earn up to R1000 per day plus “fries” up to 10 that they sell at R30. Paints a different picture doesn’t it? The odd idiot that complains about this arrangement is exactly what I described him as. For nearly no investment or responsibility a motivated crewman can easily pocket R80 000 to R100 000 in cash a year, TAX FREE. This also free him up to do odd jobs now and again as so many do.

The line fishery, the fat cash cow with its uncontrolled salary structures in alliance with uncontrolled poaching and interim relief … has been instrumental in the decimation of tuna pole crews and loss of skills in this sector. Why its simply easier to go fish 2 to 3 days a week make substantial tax free salary and sit at home waiting for your crayfish money than actually go to sea for a week and work for it.

Do youreslf a quick check on these figures. Take any one of the ten top line fish boats that regularly catches over 1000 fish a day in St Helena Bay, (I omitted the vessel names that were specifically mentioned here) …. And see if they are VAT registered or if the pay PAYE or workmen's compensation. Maybe  one. The reality of a snoek run just here, regardless of all the rest is as follows: 30 000 fish at R20 turns over R600 000.

Wages for 10 guys is easily up to R25000 per man in a month to 6 weeks. All cash. This is boosted by snoek runs that are shorter but no less intense in Lamberts Bay,  Cape Point and Hout Bay. The yellow tail runs once  a year at the point and Struis also contribute. Last year the snoek fleet arrived en mass in Struis Baai and totally upset the market there. In the first week we had 4 sea days where almost all the boats averaged between 1.5 and 4 tons a day. One of the vessels figures showed 8 tons, actual not the bullshit submitted in the catch returns which at that stage constituted R160 000  in four days. Crew's take home pay was up to R10 000 for the week for the better guys.

I would conservatively say that the top end operators are turning over in excess of R 1.5 million a year and are not declaring it correctly. What they do is they only declare their half of the catch, not the crews half… which is incorrect as the  law clearly stipulates that the right has the authority to sell fish and not the crew. Hence the right owner is responsible for all the sales turnover. The right holders maintain that the crew are contractors, but from a SARS perspective maintains that there is an implied relationship hence the right holder is responsible for taxation. Its lucky that this is a free for all and cash business where there is almost no way to track money and you can declare what you like as is the case with their DAFF catch returns. (How nice would this be if the tuna pole sector was allowed this luxury?)

It would be interesting to see what would happen if SARS applied itself to this industry, not just the boats but the hawkers also and see what comes out. For an industry that has a blatant disregard for so many legislations, it does seem to be crying poor mouth for all the wrong reasons. I mean how can the Department, DA and ANC actually classify the line fishery as  a subsistence type business. Some of these guys actually, really not maybe, turn over double the average tuna pole vessel. Yet its convenient to be labeled traditional line fishery because you pay next to nothing for levies and actually get sympathy when you cry about it. But its time to stand up and be counted for what you actually are.

Its time somebody woke up and smelt the coffee. Snoek and yellow tail are healthy vibrant resources that need to be managed outside of the traditional line fishery. One of correctly regulated will remain a healthy resource that will provide food security to many low income groups the other is a money spinner in terms of export revenue. The yellow tail targeted by the line fishery is an absolute waste of this resource ….with the exception of a few, the snoek fleet is its worst enemy. In the volumes they land the fish in a short space of time, it becomes a poor quality product resulting in poor returns and a drive to fish “quantity as opposed to quality” as the vessels are just not the suitable tools for this resource in terms of generating sufficient revenue to ensure maximum profitability or return from this resource.

It is far better left coastal communities and the tuna pole fleet to catch. Firstly the numbers locally landed by coastal communities will remain small and retain its value in the local market. Landed in the tuna pole fleet as fresh exports the value adding is substantial. Someone just has to get the imported yellow tail taxed to an extent that its landed cost stay at R30 to ensure the sustainability  of the coastal communities catching plans.

The tuna pole fleet has been trying for 8 years to get the yellow tail back as a legitimate target resource but to no avail as some incompetent idiots at Sea Fisheries actually believes all the nonsense about the line fishery being absolutely dependent on it. The tuna pole fishery gets told that historically(from blue books) they are not dependent on it. Yet the line fishery is. Its just that some of the older right holders were skimming the system and know the department wants to punish all because of the mistakes of those before, ABSOLUTE Nonsense. In all due respect, the line fishery needs to be properly investigated and the rot removed. I agree it is an employer, but at whose expense. The tuna pole fleet is suffering due to the growth of this sector. One that continues to grow regardless of current legislation in other areas. The crews on these very boats were traditionally the backbone of the tuna pole and freezer boat fleet. The tuna pole fishery is also a hand line fishery and is severely dependent on this skill. Good line fisherman  are simply the best pole fisherman. It is notable that the tuna pole fleet lost many of its top South African crews to line fishing boats in earlier years.

For all the good reasons the line fishery was split to prevent over fishing of reef species in ecologically sensitive areas. Hence we then had the traditional line fishery and the tuna pole fleet. The tuna pole fleet due to its inadequate resources, due to its loss of yellow tail and inability to have multi species or sector involvement nearly collapsed. One of the contributing factors was the constant crying of the traditional line fishery as to the effects reinstatement of yellow tail there would negatively affect itself.

Surely by this time it seems relevant to realize that the line fishery needs segregation to accommodate proper growth. Many line fishers would be better suited in a small freezer boat. ( Sounds almost like the tuna pole industry)This in terms of adherence to road ordinance and generally the nature of what they do. It may not suit the adrenalin junkies that need 400hp on a plank to feel like a man, but would definitely stimulate the struggling boat building economy and legalize many operations. The spin off is that these vessels are also suitable for tuna operations. Bear in mind that the department penalizes tuna pole operators for snoek fishing??? How dumb, they should be rewarded for there efforts to keep their business afloat when the yellow tail resource is being raped by another industry that is undeserving due to its general floating of countless legislation.

My suggestions to form part of the control of this section of the industry:

• 1.        Segregate the linefishery. All traditional type vessels to be area bound and resident resources in these areas to be for locals only as suggested or alluded to in the DA plan
• 2.        Ski boats under 6m be community bound and only for community projects
• 3.        Rationalize the snoek industry and form a sector on its own or make it subservient to the tuna pole industry ALLow tuna access with a Olympic TAC for this section of the sector.
• 4.        Effectively assist there transformation in accordance to the road ordinance Acts. Place a monitorium on all vessel upgrades over 7,5m or vessels and trailers with combined GVM of 3500kg.
• 5.        SAMSA to dictate terms of vessel building guidelines to prevent larger vessel being unsuitably built to meet the above requirements and endangering crew.
• 6.        Scrap any operation that cannot comply with road ordinance with financial assistance from the government. In so doing facilitate transition to Tuna Pole  industry.
• 7.        Properly evaluate the tuna pole industries resource needs in accordance to skills and economic viability.
• 8.        Facilitate a sector that facilitates snoek, yellowtail(reasonably capped in terms of TAC to prevent overfishing ) and tuna as these species are reliant on the same skills.
• 9.        Remove current yellowtail restrictions on tuna pole vessels outside the contiguous Zone. Implement an Olympic system TAC for yellow tail for the line fishery and tuna pole fisheries within the South African EEZ.

This may seem like the ramblings of an old man but they are actually the experience of an entrepreneur trying to abide by the law getting dead ended because some bureaucratic idiot isn’t dynamic enough to realize that the system they have is dysfunctional at so many levels that it cannot cope with the economic requirements of a modern fishing fleet that is dependent on mobility and or international markets to ensure profitability.

….Sometimes I wonder if DAFF’s ears are actually connected to there brains? In this comment I humbly apologize to the few that do go out there way to help as far as they can….

As far as the right holder being on board, it is absolute crap. It is nice to picture this in the line fishery but where the value adding is concerned, IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE and an unrealistic requirement for the snoek fishery that can have up to 20 consecutive fishing days without rest! The department needs to find a more realistic means of ensuring the right people get allocated rights in terms of utilization.

On a lighter note, our friend Desmond Stephens has been fired as acting DDG as of the 28th of February. It must be commented that his reign at the helm could be considered controversial and even catastrophic. Let's see who will be appointed to right this floundered ship?

Somehow Towing The Line...I Mean Boat

There are not many of us who are actually aware of the fact that a large majority of the line fishery's vessels are illegally being carted from harbour to harbour along our busy roads with total disregard for public safety. This information contained here under was extracted from a concerned citizen's letter.

In an attempt to curb effort in the industry the DAFF imposed a vessel limit length of 10 meters. How was this done? Who knows? But all common sense went right out the window here. The department is an organ of state and responsible for the allocation of rights that conform to all legislation. It conveniently makes you have tax clearance certificates but does nothing about ensuring that they comply to road ordinance and workmen's compensation. Talk about choosing what to enforce and what not to at your convenience.

Due to their absolute lack of understanding of the industry they did  not realise that almost all ski boat type vessels over 7.5 meters couldn't possibly hope to meet the minimum requirements of the road ordinances act without serious investment and ridiculous maintenance costs. In actual fact it didn’t even seem to cross there minds to check this out and make a compromise in other fisheries even when told in the road shows.

In simple terms the road ordinance stipulates that all trailers with Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) of over 750 kg be braked. Then when the GVM exceeds 3500 kg it cannot be on an override system (the trailer hook that slides and uses cables to activate brakes) but needs some form of power assistance that is SABS approved. If the GVM is over 5000 kg the trailer then needs to be further fitted with ABS brakes. (yes similar to your expensive cars). 

The reality of this is that there is no SABS approved braking system that will adequately stand up to the corrosive and erosive nature of the silt laden sea water in harbours where vessels are slipped. There are some smaller systems that on smaller trailers are maintainable but the larger units prove to be to costly. 

There is a solution but it is expensive and will take some time to approve. In America the use of aluminium as a general construction material is quite normal. Its mass to strength ratio are probably 30% lower than the steel commonly used here. They also use electrical brake actuators as opposed to mechanical or air assisted systems. Our problem is that SABS does not approve this system. This simply as nobody or any south African trailer builder has submitted one for testing… This because no one is prepared to fork out the money required by SABS to test them.  (The author here went on to explain that it was due to the association not being able to collect subs, let alone pick up the tab for the required testing)

Probably the most suitable vehicles for towing these large vessels are Ford F250 4x4 and Landcruiser 4x4. Pretty much all else is to expensive, does not have enough traction or just to expensive to maintain. Trucks are probably the answer, but prove to have to little traction as the slips are slimed over and at the lower end of the tides the rear wheels lose traction, (industry is market driven not tide) 4x4 trucks are to expensive and harbour facilities are not geared to accommodate the extra length vehicles. It must be suitably noted that the most practical vehicles, Land cruisers, GVM is to low to legally even tow the larger vessels, never mind pull them out of the water with loads of fish and crew, and Ford's F250 are expensive and require heavy duty drivers licences. Good luck standing in that que.

In terms of transport, an achievable solution for under 5000 Kg GVM trailers would be aluminium electrically brake assisted trailers that operate on a 5^th wheel principle. A 5^th wheel is similar to a horse and trailer where you remove the load body and fit a plate on top of the chassis similar to articulated trucks. This allows a 5000 kg trailer to be towed legally without ABS brakes. This is achieved by having 3500 kg supported by the trailer axles and 1500 kg supported by the vehicle's rear axle. Cutting things fine on land cruisers but definitely an option. This should be fine in theory until you consider the cost… would be great of government could facilitate a buy back of inadequate towing vehicles and supply these similar to the taxi program.

The electrical braking system is fundamentally an electro magnet that is resin impregnated to prevent water ingress. The only maintenance item would be the brake shoe itself.

All said and done, the government will need to promptly address this as its only a matter of time before its too late to effectively put the brakes on this issue.