Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Someone Is Listening


  • Please log in to reply
271 replies to this topic

#11 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 08:53 PM

Its a pity that Max Hastings first has the good sense to say :

"Environmental organisations often damage their own causes by overstatement. I am among those who have criticised Greenpeace and its brethren for abusing statistics and indulging in some pretty wild scaremongering."

but then does not bother to check his own facts before sounding off, and falls into the same trap.


He first admits stocks of herring are been fished sustainably, ( as are many pelagic stocks) yet then offers up a pelagic trawler (the Atlantic Dawn) as an example of the evils of modern fishing :blink:

Then we get

"Off northern Scotland, birds and fish are suffering from the near genocide of the sand-eels they eat, taken by netsmen for fishmeal."


Which is just plain untrue. There is very little sandeel fishing off the North of Scotland, and has not been for many years. The last I heard, even the tiny fishery left has stopped now. A scientific study was done into the collapse of the shetland sandeel fishery and found fishing had not been to blame; in fact it showed that Shetland sandeel were recruited from an unfished stock off Orkney ! The reason for the collapse is unknown but likely to be due to environmental factors.

Even the RSPB have stopped blaming fishermen for those bird collapses, yet Mr Hastings seems to think otherwise? wonder which quality source he used for his research? Sounds very like the kind of tosh Greenpeace et all keep putting out.

He also suggests Charles Clovers book "End of the Line" is important. I can't comment on the book, having never read it, but I hope it contains more accurate figures than the last two Telegraph articles I've seen by him, in which fishermen are accused of taking 750000 million tonnes of sandeel from the north sea each year . When I saw the first article, I presumed it was just a typo and poor editing, but since its cropped up yet again, im begining to wonder if he isn't confusing 750000 million fish with 750000 million tonnes? surely not... :blink:

as for


"Wigan quotes a Scottish saying, from the days when God was feared. If herring deserted a locality, fisherfolk said, it was because of "the wickedness of the people". In a rather different sense from that intended, the old sages have proved right."



Would not like to comment on the spiritual side of Scottish life (though given that there are loads of herring atm perhaps we do have one after all...... :D :D ) , but an interesting old saying nonetheless, if only because it shows that the vanishing of stocks like herring is nothing new.

Theres plenty wrong with fishing and overfishing, esp of the big predators but it would be nice to see a piece by a journalist that actually knew what he was talking about.

The piece really is poor imho but I guess we can expect more of the same when the issue of access to reserves comes up, with a direct feed between the well oiled PR machinery of extreme environmental groups, and a hungry and lazy media :(

Chris

Edited by Jaffa, 01 November 2005 - 10:11 PM.

Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#12 Guest_binatone_*

Guest_binatone_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2005 - 09:06 PM

Best way to deal with a theory formed from research is to find an opposing one in research. They do exist because these things are not exact science. Telling someone they are wrong because you know best isnt the way forward.

On a slightly different note whilst your on Binatone I spoke to a friend today and quizzed him on blinders. He's been finished several years now so this probably dont apply now???? but he said tyres were often used as blinders and he also described a rope contraption being used as something called a choker. He said a few years ago several boats who specialised in catching small crap as he termed it used these methods. He added that it was difficult to prove someone was using blinders as it is easy to say oh dear look we caught a tyre in the net.

Well if he said that then I can understand why he finished fishing. Putting anything of wait in your cod end can only be described as stupid. The less you have in your net the better it would fish, if you put things in your cod end like tyres etc it would only distort your net therefore severely restrict you from catching anything to start with.
Working at the mouthís of rivers (Tyne Humber etc) has always been places where you have caught plenty of tyres, (that mainly where dumped by dredgers from the said rivers) at times I have seen it completely spoil your fishing efforts when you have caught them unintentionally. So to put them in your net intentionally explains why this person retired from fishing all those years ago.
As for the choker, I know what a choking Becket is but do not understand what he means in respect of using one as a blinder?
Why should I have to research something that I have witnessed myself just to be able to say that my jargon proves that your jargon was wrong? Sorry but thatís like saying it was not a true story that you read is the sun because I read the true story in the daily sport.

#13 sam-cox

sam-cox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts
  • Location:Dengie, Essex
  • Interests:angerling, bonking

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:06 PM

We over hunted wolves and brown bears, so it can be done.
Commercial fisherman do have a lot of political clout, which I find strang as there inderstry is worth so little.
Wurzel you said how can people like you make a living if things are so bad, well havnt many fisherman packed up only leaving a few people like you and one or two part timers working the inshore creeks?
BASS MEMBER

IGFA Member.

Supporting ethical angling practices and wise use and conservation of fishery resources!

SACN Member.

NFSA Member.

Getting confused by politics!

MY LIST IS LONGER THAN YOURS!

#14 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:28 PM

Commercial fisherman do have a lot of political clout, which I find strang as there inderstry is worth so little.


Sam, ever considered the possibility that it may not be so strange , and that in fact the commercials have little real "clout" ?. Their "clout" could not prevent the goverment giving their grounds away to europe, the losing of more to the oil industry, introducing the crazy quota system, recently giving even Rockall away (now being trashed by anyone that feels the urge), the siting of fish farms in fishing grounds, the dumping of spoil/ gravel extraction on grounds, etc etc.

Boy, to have clout like that ;) :D , another anglers myth and possibily a very dangerous one imho. I reckon the real clout lies with the irrational but very media savvy environmental groups, and their huge budgets. I think we should be very afraid of them.

@Autumn@ , i might be wrong, but i thought the choker was the rope used to close off sections of the cod end during multiple lifts? Maybe its meaning varies around the country? or maybe my memory is getting worse! :D

Edited by Jaffa, 01 November 2005 - 10:23 PM.

Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#15 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:39 PM

The analogy is not valid. Try compare yourself to a farmer and not a worker, then you might see one of the the problems with commercial fisheries as it is practised today. What do you sow?


Would your "farmer" include those that slash and burn rainforest for a couple of years of fertile soil? , those that cause erosion to the point that the silt screws up marine ecosystems all over the globe? The farmers that are using up ancient water stores to convert land into barren saline deserts? They all "sow" and reap.
Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#16 stavey

stavey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:46 PM

Personally i am past caring what any commercial/scientist/mp/or whoever who says that the fish stocks are fine and there is nothing wrong, and dares to blame my angling skills or lack of them as some have insinuated, i know that my hobby/sport of sea angling is pretty much gone down the pan compared to 30 years ago FACT.

I dont need no internet to tell me what i already know through my own experience,.
Binatone wurzel or whoever fail to see there is a difference between towing a net as big as a football pitch for god knows how many hours a week or setting out miles of tangle nets for maybe even longer and an angler fishing with one hook and a worm on it, it stands to reason who is most likely the favaroute to catch a few fish , its a stupid comparison to make, fact is that commercial fishermen whats left of them will catch what is left and will carry on doing so and as fish numbers get lower so will in turn the fishermen thats what has happened over the years and so on, dont need no clever know all to tell any body that.

Edited by stavey, 01 November 2005 - 11:02 PM.

I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#17 Bob Jerunkel

Bob Jerunkel

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:06 PM

I notice there have been a few mentions of the herring fishery.
Apparently it is in good health right now.
Can someone tell me whether it has always been like that.
Wasn't there a time when herring stocks were at a critically low level?
Low enough to warrant a ban on catching herrings.
And did the ban work or not?
If there is no such thing as over fishing why did they ban herring fishing back then?
And if conservation measures like fishing bans dont work what made the herrings make a comeback?

#18 stavey

stavey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:11 PM

I notice there have been a few mentions of the herring fishery.
Apparently it is in good health right now.
Can someone tell me whether it has always been like that.
Wasn't there a time when herring stocks were at a critically low level?
Low enough to warrant a ban on catching herrings.
And did the ban work or not?
If there is no such thing as over fishing why did they ban herring fishing back then?
And if conservation measures like fishing bans dont work what made the herrings make a comeback?


And people forget that the tuna that use to feed on those herring never came back at all bob.
I Fish For Sport Not Me Belly

#19 Jaffa

Jaffa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,172 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 12:13 AM

late 60's / early seventies crash was due to overfishing after invention of purse seine and triplex winch.

The 1930's crash (the "tuna" one beloved of anglers net posters) had to be environmental IMHO ; drift netters for gawds sake ;) :D different ballgame :)

The herring have come and gone loads of time ;)
Help predict climate change!
http://climateprediction.net

#20 JRT

JRT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 08:52 AM

I would be interested to hear what the pro-commercial boys here would do about the management of fish stocks and why if they had their wish.

JRT