Industry news

Nemba and the local fishing tackle trade

The regulations pertaining to Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) and the listed Alien and Invasive Species as contained in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) “will definitely impact very negatively on the industry”, says John Pledger of Rapala VMC SA.

As chairman of the SA Fishing Tackle Agents and Distributers (SAFTAD) association, president of the SA Sport Anglers and Casting Confederation and ex-president of the South African Deep Sea Angling Association (SADSAA), he has a broad overview of issues affecting the fishing industry.

The pernicious limitations on freshwater fishing arises from the fact that in their zeal to protect the country’s biodiversity, and to either eradicate or manage alien and invasive species, the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) have placed fish under the same provisions that are designed to control terrestrials.

While the regulations also impact on saltwater species, it is the freshwater sector that will feel the brunt of the legislation. For example, the TOPS regulations decree that popular angling fish such as tigerfish and the largemouth yellowfish may not be fished for without a permit.

If ever there was a case of the law of unexpected consequences coming into force, it is the impact of NEMBA on recreational and sport angling, despite the fact that DEAT was forewarned that the regulations of the Act pertaining to terrestrials are totally impractical and nonsensical when applied to fishing. Nevertheless, DEAT ignored the advice and has subjected fish to the same regulations as terrestrials, and now under the TOPS regulations such species may only be fished for if the necessary permits are obtained.

Other non-angling species are listed but the implications for tigerfish and the largemouth yellowfish are severe. For example, to obtain a permit to fish for them the hapless angler has to make a written application that must be accompanied by the written consent of the land owner, and must also provide any other information that the issuing authority may require (such as a full environment impact assessment), and of course pay the fee, which is R100.

Bear in mind that this is to catch fish, despite the fact that no landowner owns the water in a river, nor the land it flows over, and certainly does not own the fish! In addition, in stark contrast to hunting, the angler cannot see the target.

The conditions for applying and obtaining such a permit make it just about impossible to obtain one. Imagine an angler fishing for yellowfish on the Vaal River or fishing for tigerfish on the Komati River, having to obtain the written permission of all the land owners his boat may pass!

What makes the TOPS regulations even more farcical is that certain articles of the Act makes provision for excluding marine and other aquatic species from certain forbidden hunting methods.

This clause makes it permissible to hunt (kill) a species (fish) using bait, but then under a sub-article forbids the hunting (killing) of species (fish) with the aid of artificial lures! All other angling activities involving listed species, for example, catch and release or holding in a keep net, require obtaining a permit as prescribed in NEMBA and its regulations.

While DEAT’s general objectives regarding biodiversity and indigenous species are in line with international conservation practices, it must also be noted that more than 90% of all freshwater fishing is based on only three species, namely trout, carp and bass, and they are all listed as alien and/or invasive. Amongst a host of other limiting clauses, the regulations pertaining to these species decree that it is illegal to release them alive into any water without a permit. This flies in the face of the catch and release policy that is accepted ethical angling practice for recreational and specimen anglers, while in sport angling, catch, weigh and release is still the order of the day.

As was pointed out to DEAT at one of its public information sessions in 2005, it would be far easier to provide protection via limitations according to an angling license, as has been done in the past. The complication to this solution however, is that certain provinces no longer issue angling licenses.

The fishing tackle trade and organised sport angling appear loathe to be drawn into the issue, an understandable attitude given that the trade’s mission in life is to operate profitable businesses, while that of organised angling is to organise competitions and select teams.

Nevertheless, both organisations depend on their customers and members to be able to go fishing unhindered by impractical legislation.

The SA Freshwater Bank Angling Federation (SAFBAF) is the only angling body affiliated to the SA Sport Angling and Casting Confederation that has done anything in reaction to the TOPS listing of NEMBA, and that was only to ban the weighing of any species of yellowfish at the 2008 bank angling nationals, a move that was not warmly received by the anglers.

Looking after the best interests of anglers is largely left to NGO’s such as the Eco Care Trust, Federation of Southern African Flyfishers and the SA Bass Society.

Pledger agrees that there will be a “large impact” on the recreational fishing trade — which is also a major concern for SAFTAD. . “Guaranteed, it will lead to job losses,” he points out, “loss in taxes from reduced turnover and profits, individuals moving away from the sport to other sports or recreational activities, a large loss in tourism, particularly in the areas where largemouth yellowfish are common, plus of course, the impact on the sale of recreational vehicles, boats, camping equipment, trailers and a whole host of other areas of business,” he (correctly) adds.

While it would be difficult to substantiate, he is adamant that “it will definitely impact very negatively on the industry.”

To date, however, it appears that the angling industry as a whole — both the primary supply side and the retail sector, to the final consumer, are merely disregarding the legislation and are carrying on as usual.

What the final outcome will be — if ever there will be one — remains an open and vexing question.

Aggravating the issue is the national government’s perceived lack of concern, or capability, of looking after the country’s waterways. It is after all the constitutional right of every SA citizen to have a clean, safe and healthy environment, which of course includes a healthy habitat for our fish stocks.