The Basin Effect

I recently read an interesting article online which highlights some poignant issues effecting our inshore fish species. I do recommend that you take a few minutes to educate yourself on these issues. For ease of reference I have copied the article here below for you:

‘The Basin Effect’, a common phenomenon that fools us all: Towards an understanding of the

plight of coastal fishes in South Africa

By Dr Nadine A. Strydom and Ms Sandrini Moodley

Zoology Department, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

“The Bountiful Ocean” are words used by poets, artists, early mariners, fisher folk and even 

scientists once upon a time. We have all romanticized about what the ocean has to offer – those 

unseen riches, poised to take our carefully prepared bait, smash our surface plug or get snagged in 

our nets. Advancements in fisheries science have highlighted the fact that we are often under 

misconceptions about what we catch and how many there are out there. 

One of the amazing things about fishermen – whether they are recreational fishermen or 

fishermen by trade – is that they always seem to know where the fish are. This has been a 

characteristic of fishermen for hundreds of years and mostly comes from experience, and 

knowledge of the fishing areas. Fishermen pride themselves in this knowing but herein lies the 

problem. In recent decades, this skill has been replaced by overwhelming improvements in 

technology such as GPS, cellphones, acoustic technology etc. which allow fishermen and fishing 

vessels to detect target species and target fishing areas with pinpoint accuracy. The fact that we as 

fisher folk can figure these things out through ancient knowledge or our fish finder, tells us 

something about fish behavior. It is well known that fish tend to aggregate around structure for 

refuge, areas of high productivity for food or areas of significance for spawning. These are the 

areas that are known to fishermen as the ‘best fishing spots’. 

The fact that fish tend to aggregate in particular areas and that it can be predicted that the fish will 

be present in those areas at specific times of the year, tide state, moon phase, night time etc. also 

leads to a concentration of fishermen in these areas. This characteristic of fish behaviour means 

that fish populations are neither evenly nor randomly distributed through-out the oceans – fish 

have preferences as to the areas they occupy based on many factors such as food resources, 

protection or spawning. This being said, once the preferred habitats of a target species are known, 

it becomes much easier for fishermen to catch that species. Aggregations of fish also make it much 

easier to catch more fish. This makes fishermen very happy and leaves scientists around the world 

gravely concerned. Herewith follows the conundrum. 

In areas of high fish abundance, fishermen need to put in less effort in order to get higher outputs 

of fish than they would in areas of lower abundance. This means that when the catch per unit 

effort (CPUE) is calculated in these areas by scientists trying to manage recreational or commercial 

fisheries, it indicates that relatively low effort was required to gain high catches – ‘there must be 

many fish around’. The CPUE is traditionally used in fisheries science as a measure of fish 

abundance but the number of fish you catch per unit time is also used unknowingly by fishermen 

as a measure of the amount of fish around to catch. However, due to the high concentration of 

the fish in a limited area because of unseen benefits to the fishes to be there, the CPUE value is 

actually inflated. This is known as the ‘Basin Effect’ – the effect of the accumulation of fish in a 

localized area on fishing success. If the same fish population was to be randomly and evenly 

spread over a larger area, the number of fish caught applying the same amount of effort would be 

much less. This presents us with the basis of the misconception.

The elevated CPUE values caused by the Basin Effect leads to overestimations of stock size in the minds of recreational and commercial fishermen, often resulting in escalated quotas, and ultimately unsustainable fishing practices. It is therefore actually very hard to estimate the number of fishes in the sea without biasing our estimates. Most of the information used by fisheries managers around the work is fishery-dependent data – information coming from the fishermen themselves. Recreational and commercial catch records are biased because we know where to find our target species and how to catch them.

Fisheries evidence of this misconception can be found in the case of northern cod (Gadus morhua) 

populations in the Canadian town of Bonavista. In areas of the Bonavista corridor where the fish 

were known to be hyper aggregating (increasing in density while their biomass decreased), the 

CPUE increased between the years of 1980 and 1990. Interestingly, in the region of the corridor 

where the fish were not hyper aggregating, the CPUE decreased during this period. Overall, the 

population was in decline, but the inflated CPUE at the site where the fish were hyper aggregating 

masked this crisis. 

The aggregating behaviour of Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), a deep-sea perch has also 

resulted in a population collapse off Australia. This species was heavily exploited in a fishery in the 

area since the 1970’s. The fish were caught in large numbers and soon the species was showing 

major decline in areas off Tasmania. It was not known at the time that the large numbers caught 

where large proportions of the population that were aggregating to spawn. Overfishing on 

spawning grounds has now left this long-lived, slow growing species highly threatened. These fish 

have been aged to 149 years and in 20 years the population has been reduced to a fraction of 

pristine stock.

Fortunately, once these types of problems were identified in fisheries, scientists could recalculate 

and management strategies were put into place to curb the decline of populations in some cases. 

These included reductions in total allowable catches (TACs) and individually transferable quotas 

(ITQs) to monitor catches and populations sizes, as well as gear restrictions to reduce fishing 

mortality. Less emphasis was placed on CPUE in fisheries management, and more reliable methods 

of assessment such as fishery-independent acoustic surveys were employed to ensure the stability 

of population numbers in these fishes. Unfortunately not all fishing sectors have these safeguards. 

The recreational fishery in South Africa suffers major population declines in recent decades.

The slow growing, late maturing coastal fishes in South Africa face the quagmire of the Basin Effect 

in the minds of their captors. Many of these species are resident in their habitats, some migrate to 

spawn, some gather in large numbers to spawn and many use estuaries as nursery areas. The 

Basin Effect causes major misconceptions amongst fishermen about the abundance of common 

angling fish engaging in aggregating behaviour. This misconception impedes the success of 

education of fishermen on the plight of angling fishes now facing major population collapse off the 

South African coastline. Many shore anglers ignore fishing regulations deeming them an 

unnecessary nuisance. Many anglers believe they cannot do damage with a rod and line and often 

pass the blame to the subsistence or offshore sector – another misconception. The subsistence 

sector is a relatively small component of the fishing force in South Africa targeting coastal species 

and the large fishing fleets of the country don’t have access to the shallow-water species that are 

heavily exploited.

Populations of Baardman, Dageraad, Dusky kob, Englishmen, Galjoen, Garrikc, Geelbek, Redsteenbras, Red Stumpnose, Riverbream, Scotsman, Seventyfour, Silver Kob, Squaretail Kob, White Musselcracker, White Stumpnose and White-edge rockcod are all officially collapsed in 

South Africa. These species are shallow-water, coastal species that are available to the recreational (Rock and Surf or Estuary sectors), ski-boat and subsistence fisheries only. All these 

species grow slowly; reach sexual maturity only after a number of years; have complex biology in 

that many change sex after a number of years; and most are harvested below breeding size. For 

example, Dusky kob reaches sexual maturity at about 1m in size (5-6 years of age); yet fish are 

harvested below this size and are unfortunately regulated as such (Minimum size is 60 cm). Many 

species that undergo sex change, especially late in their lives, are now subject to skewed sex ratios 

in the wild. Poenskop or Black Musselcracker only become male after 18 years of age, now that 

most large individuals are fished out, the population is mainly female dominated and these too are 

harvested with such pressure that few live long enough to change sex and become males. Many 

species are legally harvested at size of sexual maturity (White Musselcracker) yet their population 

status suffers the same fate as the kob. Shear harvesting pressure dictates their population status. 

All these species suffer the consequences of the Basin Effect by virtue of spawning behavior, 

feeding strategies, migration, estuary nursery use or reef residency. They aggregate and their 

young are trapped in the ‘safe refuge’ of estuary nurseries, a fishing hotspot around South Africa. 

The problems are multifaceted but fishermen behaviour and fish behavior are at the core of the 

problem. 

The only solution is angler education and government legislation in support. A ban of all kob catch 

retention is long known by fish biologists as the only solution to save this species from local 

extinction off South Africa. How well received would such a ruling be? Firstly, would it be 

supported amongst the various fishing sectors in South Africa and secondly, would it be enforced 

in South Africa given the extent of enforcement issues affecting our marine resources. The only 

solution in the interim is angler education and higher penalties for the illegal trade in recreational

fish species. Recent fish poaching along the entire South African coast by members of the 

recreational sector who sell to restaurants and overseas markets has become an epidemic and 

exacerbates the problem. In the Eastern Cape, perpetrators who fish under recreational permits 

are also known abalone poachers with convictions or pending cases against them. Marine 

resource crimes coupled with the general lack of education in resource users is decimating coastal 

fishes in South Africa.

Know your species, know its vulnerabilities but use the knowledge to understand how you have 

been misled and fish responsibly. Report environmental crimes against fish. Name and shame 

wrong-doers in public forums like Facebook & fishing sites. We don’t want them amongst us. Fish 

ethically and maybe your grandchildren will also have fishing stories about the same species to 

share with you in the future. 

We, The People’s DDG Support Group Striking….A Pose/Protest

Not too long ago in a land far far away…actually in Hout Bay which at times can be considered just that, there was a mighty gathering of concerned citizens. At a glance from over the magical mountain in the picturesque valley all did not appear well. The humble citizens were up in arms over the recent axing of their savior, a one Desmond Stevens.

At 10 am one good morning after having offloaded the hake long liner, Valhalla there was an almighty commotion at the entrance to the harbor. Ten taxis had systematically with military precision managed to block the entrance.  The number plates were all from CAM - Caledon & Kleinmond, Cape Province. It seems that the event organisers arranged a “protest for hire” when all the concerned citizens filed out the taxis and gathered along Harbor Road to dance, shout, scream and do all things necessary and ancillary for a good ol toi toi. Fashioning their ANC flags and Zuma T shirts, the mob was well and truly adequately dressed. But were they? The message being broadcast aloud by the bull horn was that of a conflicting story of how the ruling party mustn't turn their backs and ignore this small law abiding community and the pending promises. While the hired help seemed to go about their business of toi toing, the community who were actually up in arms at this stage soon realised their embarrassing mistake and soon the ANC flags were dropped and ushered to the rear.  The reasons for this formal gathering of sorts was to voice their disapproval of the axing of their comrade Desmond Stevens, who promised the local community an avenue for which to voice their opinions to actively engaged the Department. Well you see, it turns out that they were requesting free quotas I mean, how much more perlemoen and crayfish do you want unlevied i.e. free? Anyways, as a historical fishing community they are ENTITLED to free quotas to go forth and do as their father’s father’s you name it had done and actively fish...according to the long grey haired rusta with the bull horn.

What a fantastic idea and concept?! If this is the case then why am I not ENTITLED to half of Cape Town Harbor? My Great Great Grandfather was the original port’s captain/ harbor master. Surely I should be allowed to claim half of the V&A Waterfront? With the sands of time comes about change and with change (expedited for those of the previously disadvantaged) since 1994, those who were ENTITLED enough got their own whilst the gettings good? When will the statutes of limitation end here?

To add to the general over all convoluted concept of this gathering, the langaanas arrived and joined in on the action to protest as they want to enforce that a portion of all hake landed in this harbor is to be sold to the “locals.” The problem with this is that due to the ANC granting quotas to their choms and comrades in South Western Township, there are those who merely catch the quotas for their holders who are land locked. As is the case with the Valhalla, they are merely vessel owners and don’t have a single kilogram of hake to their names. The right holder can insist as to where the hake is to sold and offloaded too which is the case with some. So as much as I support their particular cause, we would like to sell hake to the informal non vat registered cash traders, but alas we have to obey the wishes of our comrades.

Meanwhile stuck and stranded inside the confines of the harbor fence were numerous trucks and bakkies laden with fresh fish of all sorts including an airfreight cargo truck collecting tuna to be hastily hauled to the airport to meet the respective deadline for export. But just like this truck stood idle, so did the various tour operator buses and vans who with their international tourists were forced in having their Cape Peninsula Tour cut short. In fact one particular tour operator had to have transported the tourists to the airport to meet their flight check in time of 3 pm… needless to say I’m sure they were upset to say the least.

So with the bull horn being passed around like the proverbial hot potato, the messages were becoming even more confusing so I took it upon myself to investigate this inconvenience. In doing so I managed to retrieve a flyer that was being passed through car windows of passer byes. A copy of the flyer is here below for you to read further, but to summarise it for you it contains the following:

Due to the white controlled media, the murmurings, rumours and “white noise” ultimately cost Desmond his position. I wonder if they have ever heard of one Dr. Igbal Surve and a little concern of his called Sekunjalo Independent Media Consortium (SIM)? This ANC stalwart is the majority shareholder of The Independent News Papers who recently at will axes editor’s and senior staff, etc who portrays himself, his company and the ANC in any bad light or disrepute. So not sure who needs to check up on their facts here but I guess the author of the flyer needs Google to clarify his “white noise comment.”

But what I found interesting and a point that warrants further investigating is why Inspector Levie had locked the rear harbour entrance (closest to Snookies)? Needless to say, Tina Joemat-Pettersen didn't arrive as requested by the DDG Support Group who were by now becoming more tired than restless and promptly at 4 pm the taxis loaded their paying fare and departed the scene. Community policing did nothing but stare and pose for the local journalists. Only the hard working small to medium businesses were affected here and if I hadn't written about this then I too probably would have forgotten about that day in a place over the hill far far away when my day was wasted.

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.

You Decide - Imported vs Local Wild Caught Line Fish

This argument is currently doing the rounds on our local newspapers with recent articles by journalist John Yeld namely; "‘Snoek’ imports sinking local fishers” and “Imported fish costs less,say retailers.” Both these articles provide the average consumer insight into the issues facing the local fisherman and the retailers alike.

The fisherman argue that imported Yellow Tail (Seriola Lalandi) and Snoek (Thyrsites Atun) is ruining their market with far reaching consequences for all dependent thereupon, whilst the retailers will argue it affords them the consistency for their customers at the right price. Let’s be honest here. It’s a tough and complex argument as we are discussing the livelihoods of so many artisan fishers and the consumer being positively affected by the importation of frozen line fish. The locally caught fish supplied during “fish runs” will experience a price decrease with basic economic understanding of demand vs supply. The price will fluctuate drastically depending on the volumes being caught, whereas the price for imports will be more stable according to the rate of exchange, thereby affording the retailers the opportunity to plan ahead and guarantee supply. The retailers cannot rely on the seasonal catches for regular supply and so have turned to the highly competitively priced imported farmed fish. The average consumer probably would not be able to tell the difference anyway. It is therefore not a quality issue rather that of an affected livelihood.

Whilst no one will argue the point that farmed (aquaculture) fish is not as tastier, firmer ,etc than wild caught, the public has a right to know what they are purchasing and from which origin. The manner in which we prepare and cook our “catch” also closes the gap between the fresh taste and that of the farmed with countless recipes involving complex spices.

The National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) has strict import regulations and all fish products are thoroughly tested prior to being released for our local consumption. There are more regulations adhered too with the importing of frozen fish than what is currently being implemented on the line fish boats. In fact there are none for these vessels operating within this fishing sector. For argument sake, most commercial fishing vessels will have to follow a strict set of guidelines called the HACCP principles (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) which is enforced by the NRCS in other fishing sectors. This body is also responsible for all testing being done and also issues our Health Certificates for fish exports with South African origin. We currently test for lead, cadmium, mercury and histamine, just to name a few. Now the skiffs/ ski boats that are currently operating are not subject to these HACCP principles than say the commercial tuna operators are. For instance these commercial line fish vessels will have no ice on board to chill their catch ensuring the absence of histamine. Their catches are offloaded into the open back of the vehicles and simply covered by a tarp. (once again no HACCP here) The truth is that whilst the public is mostly unaware of this and other similar transgressions, the imported product is in fact healthier and safer for you to consume, provided the retailers follow the HACCP guidelines and cold chain.

The regulation of the line fishing sector by the Department Of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is somewhat inadequate when compared to other sectors such as the hake long line and tuna pole. For instance the hake long liners have to off load their catches into a factory at the expense of the operators so as the government can enforce strict controls over quotas. Whilst the hake is a quota based or Total Allowable Catch (TAC) management, the line fish and the tuna pole sectors are Total Allowable Effort (TAE) whereby the government manages this stock by looking at the total effort sustained upon the sector’s natural resources. The traditional line fishermen are afforded the luxury of estimating their catches and paying their levies in advance. I wonder how close their estimates are to the volume that’s actually being landed?

But such is the business sense not to pay higher prices for inconsistent supply when you can import a farmed product regularly and at competitive prices. It’s literally a no brainer but the consumer needs to be well informed as to what it is exactly that they are purchasing to make an informed decision. The retailers mustn't misconstrue the already price conscious consumer with wild caught promises displays of frozen farmed fish on ice. A quick simple short term solution would be to ask the fish monger at your local retailer as to what is on display. They should know and be able to inform you to make the right purchase for you at the right price accordingly.

Whilst I understand the plight of the fishermen,   as a consumer “what affects my pocket is what counts” and if they looked after their fish from their hooks to the consumer then it could be arguably a far superior product worth paying a premium for. Until this is the case, I prefer to purchase from sea frozen and farmed sources unless it hasn't been caught on board my own boat.