As a democratic society, it is up to us to decide how we use our one and only natural resource — the ocean. Yet while we all struggled our way through Covid, the Government with the help of a non-governmental organisation has drawn up a plan to take away 20 per cent of our only natural resource without coming to the fishermen. Fishermen represent two out of the 17 seats on the steering committee. Every plan the Government brought forward did not suit the fishermen.

Imagine ten, 20 years chumming up a spot — a spot you fish every time you go out, a spot that is your bread and butter — and the Government decides to make it a protected area. Our exclusive economic zone consists of a ring extending 200 miles from our shores. Protecting 20 per cent of this vast ring of ocean really isn’t a problem to the fishermen; there is only one boat on the island that fishes any farther than Argus Bank, 26 miles offshore.

The fishermen suggested a ring or segment of the open ocean be protected. Their suggestions were not listened to at all. Every plan the Government brought forward was unacceptable to the fishermen. We have no problem protecting 20 per cent, we have a problem with which 20 per cent they have chosen to protect. Once again the Government has forgotten who they work for, who hired them in the first place. Us! Instead of working with the fishermen to come up with a plan that is a win-win, the Government is forcing down our throats a plan that is totally untenable.

Understandably, the fishermen are ready to throw the tea into Boston Harbour. Many of us would be happy to have 20 per cent of our 200-mile EEZ protected. We understand the importance of protecting spawning grounds.

But protecting certain sections of the ocean and then not enforcing these marine protected areas leaves us with paper laws. Laws that exist only on paper. For example, our speed limit is 35km/h, yet everyone knows you don’t get a ticket unless you are going in excess of 50km/h. Creating massive marine protected areas and then not patrolling is what we already have — leaving the ocean open-season to anyone ready to go out there and break the law, fishing licence or not. Adding another 20 per cent on a map that exists only on paper is what we are heading for.

If they cannot enforce the marine-protected areas that are already in place, what makes us think they can protect even more? For some reason they don’t have the drive, vision or budget to create a viable, sustainable commercial fishery and have instead turned to a conservationist NGO funded by a billionaire when funding for science and enforcement could have come from tax revenue created by a viable industry.

Instead of doing the necessary field science to find out what is actually out there, coming up with quotas and enforcing them by putting drones, patrol boats, GPS trackers and cameras on fishing boats, they are relying on fishermen self-reporting their statistics. Meaning any data they have, or report to have, is as effective as our 35km/h speed limit. They are protecting huge chunks of our reef platform because they think the data shows stocks haven’t recovered when in fact the data, because it is self-reported, is inaccurate in the first place.

Couple this with a recreational fishery that is completely and totally unregulated, and for which no data is collected, self-reported or otherwise, and you have incomplete, inaccurate data. Also there are reasons other than fishing for fish stock to decline or catch numbers to decrease. If the market shrinks, hotels close, population shrinks, more cheap imported fish comes in demand will drop. If conditions in the ocean change, stocks can naturally fluctuate. The ocean is a complex system, each species relying on others for its survival. If bait species decline, then so will populations of larger, predatory fish. The ocean is a complex web and declining commercial-fishing yields does not instantly point to overfishing — and the response to overfishing is not restricted to creating marine-protected areas.

It seems the Government has no idea what a viable sustainable fishery looks like or how it is supposed to work. A fishery needs to meet two criteria for it to work: first you need accurate surveys to come up with a quota, an amount of fish we can sustainably take. This number, once generated, also has to be assessed for viability. A viable fishery is one that generates enough tax income to cover the cost of creating it in the first place, while allowing the fishermen to turn a profit. If we had a viable fishery, the Government would have enough tax revenue to be able to pay for enforcement.

If there are not enough fish to cover the cost of creating an industry, there is no industry until fish stocks rebound. Instead of conducting real surveys, the Government instead relies on statistics that are inherently flawed and incomplete. Based on inaccurate data and stubborn conservation-only attitudes, the Government has turned to charitable NGOs funded by billionaires to protect an ocean they know little about. Not that they know nothing, it is just that fishermen know more.

I ran into a local marine scientist one day when I was looking for bait. I know that when it is really windy out of one direction for a few days, all the baitfish will huddle in bays protected from the wind. If you want to find hogmouth fry or pilchards, it is best to look in protected bays after a strong blow. It had taken this scientist two weeks to figure that out whereas had he just asked a fisherman, we would have saved him two weeks of effort. When a new species of ray graced our shores, who was the first to document it? I was. The scientists think they find a new grouper spawning site, but it turns out it was just a hole a fisherman had been baiting for 30 years!

Because they are unwilling to go out and get their own statistics, leave the recreational fishing totally unregulated and simply rely on fishermen to honestly record what they catch, they have no idea what is going on.

Instead of actually finding out what is going on in the ocean, all they do is assume the worst and ban any fishing technique or approach that is effective. In viable sustainable fisheries, which exist across the globe, all of a country’s EEZ is protected all of the time. There are Alaskan and Canadian fisheries where fishermen can make up to $75,000 in a day or two, year after year. This is because the government works with the fishermen, the scientists, track the fish, find out how much herring or salmon there is that year and when these fish congregate they allow the fishermen to take a percentage that will not hurt the fish stocks.

Protecting certain areas for 363 days a year would not be a problem if those two days are $15,000 days for the fishermen and budget-covering for the scientists. Heaven forbid a viable, sustainable commercial fishery more than pays for itself and can provide funding for child and family services, education, roads, etc. The scientists need to leave the offices, put down their false statistics and go find out for themselves how much fish is out there and how much we can take. If that number is high enough to justify creating an industry — ie, the fisherman can make a profit and it generates enough tax income to cover the cost of regulating the industry — then open it up.

If you know we can take, say, $500,000 worth of grouper, the easiest and most cost-effective way to do that is to catch the fish right after they have spawned. Grouper spawn on the night of the full moon in the summer months; when spawning they don’t eat, but for some reason two nights after spawning, they feed voraciously. Two nights after the full moon, after the fish have spawned, you can catch as many grouper as you would like — you drop a line, you get a fish.

This $500,000 quota could be met in two days. All the fishermen would be in the same spot and therefore easy to watch and enforce. By catching the quota quickly, it makes it more profitable for the fisherman because there is less fuel burnt, and less wear and tear on the boat and equipment. Also it makes it easier to enforce, as the fishermen are not spread out fishing on random days. The grouper grounds could be closed year-round, except for two days.

If radar picks up a boat stopping on the grouper grounds, send a patrol boat. On the two days a year the grounds are open, have patrol boats, drones, fisheries officers or volunteers on fishing boats. That way the Government can see with its own eyes what is actually there and shut it down when the quota is reached. This would be far superior to simply drawing lines on a map and then not doing anything to enforce these marine-protected areas. It would also create exclusivity for the commercial fishermen, preventing recreational fishermen from illegally catching and selling fish. This would ensure 100 per cent of the quota goes to licensed commercial fishermen.

Proper protection ensures there can be a fishery in the first place; fishermen understand this better than most. Fishermen are pro-conservation; just not the kind of conservation the Government has cooked up. When the Government came up with the Bermuda Ocean Prosperity Plan, it could have worked with the fishermen to choose what areas would be best. It would realise that by protecting a lot of the bays in which we catch bait, fishermen would just kill marlin for bait instead. Once again, saving fish in one spot to kill others elsewhere. Give us our bays, all bays, and then do your jobs: leave your desks, come out with us, find out how much fry, anchovies and pilchards are swimming around, then come up with quotas and size limits.

Every year is different. Some years the hogmouth are thick, some years they are harder to find owing to conditions outside of only fishing. There are many factors that determine the abundance of certain species on our reef systems. Instead of going out and finding out what is happening in our waters, the Government clings to rotten statistics justifying its glorified conservationist daydreams with the help of questionable NGOs, to the detriment of us all — drawing lines on our one and only natural resource willy-nilly.

They have spent 30 years banning, restricting and taking away without doing any enforcement, leaving the ocean open-season to anyone who wants to go out there and pillage. They claim species numbers still haven’t recovered according to data about as accurate as Donald Trump’s tax returns. All while spending the taxpayers’ money on more paper laws because even if the BOPP is put in place the fishermen won’t adhere to the new protected areas anyway. They have no choice: either break the law or starve. Which would you choose? All of this done by marine scientists that get seasick and spend two weeks looking on the choppy side for the bait.

We live in a democratic society and the Government was elected by the will of the people. If you believe fishermen should have a say, join their cause. Democracy fails when we fail to speak up. We have one natural resource and, while we all struggled through Covid, the Government got in bed with an NGO funded by a billionaire to protect 20 per cent of it with zero input from us.

• Matthew Jones is a fisherman and charter boat captain