Many of you will have now seen the SVT 2 documentary "Den siste kustfiskaren"  (The last of the coast  fishermen) and for many, the number one question has been; it is not what is in the film, but what has been left out of the film. "Den siste kustfiskaren" has most defiantly caused an uproar within the sport fishing fraternity. Whereas, the portrayal of a lone estuary fishermen and his way of life that is under threat from the authorities and sport fishing organizations. What is it that makes Jim Svensson’s activities, more interesting and the continued decline in the Baltic Sea salmon stocks, and the drastic situation we now have with our rivers not so interesting. And that the Baltic salmon is so polluted with dioxin and PCB's. That if one was to eat salmon more than three times a year…………….you would glow a bright green in the dark.

Jim Svensson is one of five nets men operating in the Mörrumsån estuary. He takes about four hundred salmon and sea trout per season. Multiply that by five = 2000 salmon and sea trout. The same number  the MFA have stated since 2007……..now there is prove, that these nets men are taking more Mörrumsån salmon and sea trout in the sea than what migrates into the Mörrumsån. To be objective and fair, they are just a part of the overall problem. I wonder how the pike sport fishermen feel being portrayed as criminal and guilty by association…………the law must have changed. I thought one was innocent until proven guilty. Well there you go “its not what is in "Den siste kustfiskaren" it is what has been left out.

When reviewing the many comments about the documentary, I was left with the impression that only 10 % were sympathetic for Jim Svensson’s way of life, as I am, and said so on the documentary. Oh yeah, I did not hear that, did you? The MFA have advocated, that there is the opportunity to co-exist with the sport fishermen. We have been promoting this since 2006. That’s right, I forgot to mention, that when in doubt “don’t’ leave home without one” Now why did I do that. Well, right from the very start, I knew that the producer of the documentary was pro the estuary nets men and maintain an old tradition and would not portray the sport fishermen in a good light…......it was that obvious. When I was younger, I spent many hours in-front of TV cameras filming this and that about the industry that I’m in. And from that, I learnt some very hard lessons from what is in a film and from what have been left out. In most cases, it is the stuff that has been left out that is the most interesting. But many of you have already picked up on this and asked the question…..were the MFA censored..............yes. Because, if you are going to portray something, do it truthfully and without change. Not "cut and paste" as was done in this film.  What many had hoped for, was a honest portrayal, factual elliments, and an unbiased view of the subject matter. Did  we get it...........no. Shame really, as there was so much good matrial to work with..... and all we ended with was  a sixty minute "soap opera" dramatization about one person, with some in the film potrayed as the  bad guys and criminals, and the rest portrayed as being weak, shallow and ineffectual.

Lets move on here………. Reading some of the commentaries about "Den siste kustfiskaren" many would believe that these armchair critics were either politicians or were related to politicians. My response has been; if it was not for the MFA and to a lesser degree (very recent arrivals and its so fashonable now being seen as being one of the players) Sportfiskarna, and what about their C&R policy; that's right, there's not one. Anyhow, no one would know anything about the problems. Because, it is for sure that the authorities and the politicians are not saying or doing anything. Except, that they may continue to allow us to glow a bright green in the dark, and we will all know the good news by this April 8^th. Does that mean that by April the 8^th, there will be less dioxin in the Salmon and sea trout?

Lastly, just because there has been a documentary about the Mörrumsån, that everything is OK now, and the problem has gone away……..give me a break. That’s what the authorities and the politicians “mind set” would be. We know differently, and the only way to spell it out is………we have a problem……so lets deal with it, because no one else wants to,  except for the few, who superficially make themselves  look good like puppets on the end of a piece of string. Using dioxin as scare tactics is not a very honorable way of getting rid of the commercial fisher men. Yes, its something we could expect from the politicians and authorities as a way from deflecting from what they should have been doing, long ago, by giving the commercial fishermen an honorable exit with finacial inducments or alternative employment opportunities.

The only way forward, is to give these commercial nets men, a fair opportunity to co-exist with the sport fishermen, but that "window of opportunity" is getting smaller by the day. With the same conditions we have advocated since 2006. Which is, "under authority control and within a quota system"  Advocating this, does not mean its a sign of weakness. Because at the end of the day and if nothing works....they must go. What really blows me away, is that nobody within the political system has promoted this alternative.

At the same time, the sport fishermen have to come to terms and take a stand for the sake of fairnes and equality, and promote in a determined way, catch and release of salmon and sea trout, before we reach the "point of no return" and there is nothing left to fish for, for either the commercial and sport fishermen.

Nigel Griffiths

Chairman

MFA