Not necessarily. Protecting spawners may be very important for nurturing fish stocks and wider environmental protection. But if the fishing effort is diverted from spawning fish which, by definition, have had at least one opportunity to breed, to another area, with many more immature fish that have never bred, the result could be worse. This is why CEFAS has expressed concerns about some protected area plans.

Alternatively, for species that must find somewhere to hide away in to avoid being eaten by predators, and where there are only a limited number of hideaways, the ‘excess’ fish left over will be eaten up. The abundance of such species could then depend on how many nooks and crannies there are, not on our suspending fishing during spawning. Protecting spawners, but allowing habitat damage, could result in stock decline.

This may also explain why stock enhancement - of lobsters or salmon hatcheries, for example - can have disappointing results.

If we want to to build up the number of fish that are older, bigger and breed better, there may be more effective ways of doing this such as increasing the minimum landing size, requiring gear to be used that be highly size selective, such as some gill nets and fish hooks, and where any undersized fish escape or can be released unharmed.

Of course, if we, rather than other predators, take most of the ‘excess’ fish, that will have an effect on the wider ecosystem, but that’s a different issue from protecting stocks abundance.

All of which goes to underline the need for better information on how many fish are out there, and the key events in their lives that control their abundance. Fishermen and anglers can help gather such information. The absence of such data says a lot about the state of our fisheries management.