Jump to content

Discarded Fish


Recommended Posts

Big cod.

You say that 100 kit hauls (50% retainable fish 50% discards) was not uncommon in the good old days?

When was this? Do you mean on the Whitby boats? If you where to ever get a haul as big as that with so many discards the first thing you would do is take hold of the cod end and let the lot go. The second thing you would have done was to get the hell out of it.

Do you know what 100 kit haul of fish looks like? I think not.

If the Whitby boats where getting hauls like that back then and taking it all aboard like you are suggesting, they would of spent most of there time along side the quay clearing the fish.

I never witnessed a 100 kit haul where you had to return 50% of it. I never heard of anybody getting a 100 kit haul and have to dump half of it.

I witnessed some big hauls but they usually ended up on the quay for auction.

Wurzel.

How is it going Pete? You where having a discussion with big cod about rounded haddock and stated that I might be able to shed some light on it.

Well all I can say is that the Scottish fishery was and still is one that catches most of the haddock that comes into British ports. They have historically rounded there chat haddocks because A) they could not handle (gut) the amount that they where catching, even when they had large crews. B) The processors obviously wanted these small haddocks, whiting and even codling at times. They obviously had a market for them they had the skills in processing them and so I suppose that it was better to land and process these fish the way they did rather than add them to big cods growing mountain of discards.

We use to always gut our whiting, not very nice stood for days at a time only to get a similar price as to what the Scotchmen did for the same fish rounded.

The sad thing with rounded fish was when they where putting red die on the fish (because they had not reached the minimal price) boats where going and filling up with cod, haddock etc bulk fishing landing the lot rounded because they new they would at the end of the day get the minimal price when they had been withdrawn.

What a travesty that part of our history was.

Doctor.

Hello doctor have got a question for you (if you don’t mind) or at least for anyone who can answer it for me.

When a government (through defra) with the help of there scientist set a quota, weather this be days at sea, size of mesh to be used, or amount of fish to be taken from said area for said time. Do they take into account the amount of discards that they estimate the said fishing boat will catch and discard? If they do then surly they are telling us all what discards the fishing industry catches or they would not issue the said quotas in order to maintain a sustainable fishery. Or have the scientist got it wrong and big god has got it correct?

 

:yawn: Just for the record binitone i have seen hundreds of boxes of chats gutted with red dye on and also hundreds of boxes of tidd codling with red dye on what a bleeding waste.

100 kit halls as you say there never has been upto 50% dumped ,seed whitings you know what they are dont you but i am begining to wonder,

300 kit of tidd codlings were dragged into the harbour in full view of joe public 3 years ago by one of the pair teams 70% dumped now thats crazy.

Edited by big_cod

http://sea-otter2.co.uk/

Probably Whitby's most consistent charterboat

Untitled-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest binatone
:yawn: Just for the record binitone i have seen hundreds of boxes of chats gutted with red dye on and also hundreds of boxes of tidd codling with red dye on what a bleeding waste.

100 kit halls as you say there never has been upto 50% dumped ,seed whitings you know what they are dont you but i am begining to wonder,

300 kit of tidd codlings were dragged into the harbour in full view of joe public 3 years ago by one of the pair teams 70% dumped now thats crazy.

Big cod.

Now that is crazy. I think the argument about discards could just go on and on.

I can tell you that the biggest haul I ever witnessed was on a Whitby boat but not off Whitby. We took 21 lifts for a three hour tow, the size cod end we where working then would have held about 15 kits (150 stone) per lift you work it out big cod. They were no more than 5 stones of discards.

As long as scientists are advising the government on discards when setting the quotas for that year they must take into account discards estimated to be caught. So therefore the quota that they set must take this into account and fined it acceptable for it to be a sustainable fishery.

 

Glenn? I just wanted to point out that you said that someone was to remind you ware you where if you ever waned back on to this forum, because you said that you had better things to do with your time.

Did that include the 91 post that you had already done on that other forum?

Anyway welcome back I admire your restraint from keeping away.

I am so glad to here that you got over your sea sickness and have been enjoying trips out with big cod. I could not understand how you did not recognize him when he passed you a piece of squid from his own personal collection. God winter I nearly picked up the phone and booked a place myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big cod.

Now that is crazy. I think the argument about discards could just go on and on.

I can tell you that the biggest haul I ever witnessed was on a Whitby boat but not off Whitby. We took 21 lifts for a three hour tow, the size cod end we where working then would have held about 15 kits (150 stone) per lift you work it out big cod. They were no more than 5 stones of discards.

As long as scientists are advising the government on discards when setting the quotas for that year they must take into account discards estimated to be caught. So therefore the quota that they set must take this into account and fined it acceptable for it to be a sustainable fishery.

 

Glenn? I just wanted to point out that you said that someone was to remind you ware you where if you ever waned back on to this forum, because you said that you had better things to do with your time.

Did that include the 91 post that you had already done on that other forum?

Anyway welcome back I admire your restraint from keeping away.

I am so glad to here that you got over your sea sickness and have been enjoying trips out with big cod. I could not understand how you did not recognize him when he passed you a piece of squid from his own personal collection. God winter I nearly picked up the phone and booked a place myself.

 

There is one thing for sure there isnt the discards there used to be why is that you ask yourself ,anser there isnt the fish to discard the damage has allready been done.

http://sea-otter2.co.uk/

Probably Whitby's most consistent charterboat

Untitled-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor.

Hello doctor have got a question for you (if you don’t mind) or at least for anyone who can answer it for me.

When a government (through defra) with the help of there scientist set a quota, weather this be days at sea, size of mesh to be used, or amount of fish to be taken from said area for said time. Do they take into account the amount of discards that they estimate the said fishing boat will catch and discard? If they do then surly they are telling us all what discards the fishing industry catches or they would not issue the said quotas in order to maintain a sustainable fishery. Or have the scientist got it wrong and big god has got it correct?

 

This is the second time I’ve posted a response to this, spent over an hr last night and as I pressed post message my internet connection failed…… lost the f*****g lot, not a happy bunny. I have learnt my lesson, from now on every post is typed in word then copied and pasted.

 

Anyway here goes again, although not as explicit as last nights response.

 

Firstly DEFRA do not decide or set quotas, this is the remit of the council of ministers, who when setting the annual TAC take three things into consideration

 

 The EU – Norway agreement

 The Scientific advice

 The economic impact to their own member state industry

 

The latter consideration is usually derived from lobbying by the NFFO and SFF (in the case of the UK). I’m not totally sure on how the TAC allotted to individual members states is divied out to fishermen/companies, however, I assume that the PO’s distribute quota to members based on historical track record, vessel size, gear type (fleet segment) and a willingness to pay for more (in the event of surplus being available), this last bit is a bit of a grey area to me so if I’ve got it wrong then I apologise.

 

The level of discards for individual species, fishing area, fleet segment, gear type (mesh size, trawl thread type (single thread or twin thread etc.)) is so variable that there is no way of determining a specific discard rate for individual boats, therefore, discards are usually applied to all fishing fleets (member states) for a particular area (e.g. Subarea IV (North Sea)).

 

Discard data are derived from a number of sources (member state research surveys), in the UK this is the English and Scottish ground fish surveys (EGFS & SGFS), independent and fishermen’s surveys also feed into the knowledge loop, as do fisheries science partnership studies (FSP). However, in the same way that spawning stock biomass data and actual landings data (including the assessed unreported and or under 10m component) are estimated from the limited verifiable data, then so are discards and as a general rule discard data (as with most fisheries data) is considered to be under-estimated, although there is no definitive figure to state at what level (1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15% ??).

 

Binatone, you ask “Do they take into account the amount of discards that they estimate the said fishing boat will catch and discard”? By they I presume you mean the scientists. The answer to this is yes, unfortunately, because of the way the system works, the discard assessment is 12 months late, as there is no way of knowing what level of discards are produced until all the scientific and fishermen’s surveys have been carried out over the preceding 12 month period.

 

As an example and using the haddock data I gave in an earlier post (derived from the 2005 ACFM report).

 

In 2000 the North Sea haddock quota was set at 73,000 tonnes, the actual landings for human consumption were 46, 084 tonnes, the industrial by catch was 8,134 tonnes and discards at 48,841 tonnes, this gave a total removal or catch of 103,059, which is 30,000+ tonnes above the TAC, but actually the landings were nearly 27,000 tonnes below the TAC. In 2001 the TAC was reduced to 61,000 tonnes, unfortunately this year coincided with the strong year class recruited in 1999 moving onto the fishing grounds. At this point the 1999 year class was still undersize (immature adolescents and juveniles). The landings (despite a TAC of 61,000) were down to 38,958 tonnes, with industrial by catch at 7,879 tonnes, but because of the strong presence of the 1999 cohort, the discards for 2001 were 118,320 tonnes, giving an actual catch of 165,157 tonnes. As the haddock 1999 year class moved into size, discards fell significantly and subsequently for 2004, with a TAC of 77,000 tonnes the landings were 47,253 tonnes, with industrial by catch at a low level of 554 tonnes (probably as a result of the collapse in sandeel and Norway pout fisheries). Discards fell to 17,226 tonnes, giving a total catch of 63,033 tonnes, which is lower than the TAC and includes discards.

 

TAC’s are based on the capture of fish within the spawning stock biomass (SSB), and as the EU and UK government still sees fit to prosecute the majority of target species at a size by which they have yet to spawn, in other words anything below the MLS and therefore by definition discards are over and above the landings. In summary, the TAC and as a consequence landings, are based on an acceptable percentage of the spawning stock biomass, which by their removal will not inhibit the spawning stock from reproducing or increasing the biomass. As fish below the MLS are generally juveniles or adolescents, they are therefore immature and not included in the spawning stock biomass, therefore all discards are not accounted for in the TAC, they are in addition to.

 

Binatone, you state that either the scientists have got it wrong or Big God (I assume you mean Big Cod) is right, and I quote “If they do then surly they are telling us all what discards the fishing industry catches or they would not issue the said quotas in order to maintain a sustainable fishery”.

 

Simple answer to this; the scientists do not set the TAC, they make recommendations which are on the whole ignored by the fisheries ministers who set a TAC that limits impacts to their respective industries following the intensive round of lobbying. The scientists have recommended a zero TAC for a number of species in an attempt to return species specific fisheries to sustainable levels (Cod, rays spurdog & sharks etc. etc. etc.), why accuse the scientists of getting it wrong. If there are problems within a particular fishery or a species, the people who got it wrong are those who ignored the scientific advice and those who put short term economic benefit above long term sustainability.

 

Finally, I remember a similar situation along the Newfoundland coastline 20 years ago; a news team interviewed local fishermen and their wives over the declining cod stocks, the fishermen along with their wives all stated that the scientists had got it wrong, there was a lot of fish on the historical grounds and even more juveniles (so much so that they could afford to reduce the MLS). 10 years later the same news team went back after the stocks had collapsed and interviewed in a studio, during a live broadcast, the same fishermen and their wives. On this occasion they blamed the scientists for not giving them ample enough warning over the dire straits the cod stocks were in. The programme went to a commercial break and when it came back they went straight into a rerun of the documentary filmed 10 years earlier, by the time the documentary had finished practically all the fishermen and their wives had left the studio, those who were left refused to comment any further. The Canadian public lost their sympathy for the fishermen over night, along with any chance of compensation.

 

Hope this helps, its not a biased opinion, just a re-iteration of the facts, with a few examples of similar and actually occurring events.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest binatone

Thank you very much doc you’re posting is very interesting and certainly answers what I asked.

You say that when setting quotas that scientific advice is almost totally ignored?

Then why do they spend all that tax payers’ money on getting it in the first place.

I hope one day to have the same confidence in our lobbyist that you seam to have. As an industry we do lobby hard for what we want but if you think that we have the clout that you obviously think we have then all I can say doc is you’re very much mistaken.

Maybe it’s got more to do with scientist being conservationist rather than fishermen’s leaders having a massive influence? I don’t know for certain Doc, but thanks again for your information and am sorry that it took so long for you to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not totally sure on how the TAC allotted to individual members states is divied out to fishermen/companies, however, I assume that the PO’s distribute quota to members based on historical track record, vessel size, gear type (fleet segment) and a willingness to pay for more (in the event of surplus being available), this last bit is a bit of a grey area to me so if I’ve got it wrong then I apologise.

 

 

There's an explanation as to how the UK Quota is managed at:

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/manage/index.htm

 

Note: There are proposals to change the current system and a consultation is underway.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much doc you’re posting is very interesting and certainly answers what I asked.

You say that when setting quotas that scientific advice is almost totally ignored?

Then why do they spend all that tax payers’ money on getting it in the first place.

I hope one day to have the same confidence in our lobbyist that you seam to have. As an industry we do lobby hard for what we want but if you think that we have the clout that you obviously think we have then all I can say doc is you’re very much mistaken.

Maybe it’s got more to do with scientist being conservationist rather than fishermen’s leaders having a massive influence? I don’t know for certain Doc, but thanks again for your information and am sorry that it took so long for you to post.

 

 

I had a quick look at the 2005/06 ICES advice and on the whole the actual TAC given is higher than the ICES advice, however there are a few anomalies going back over the years to 1995. There are a number of instances were the TAC set is lower than the scientific advice, just not recently. I'm not sure why that is, possibly as you allude to, that the scientists are becoming more and more conservation minded, thats possibly true, although I would take the positionn that they are trying to avoid the Grand Banks scenario and learning from mistakes made by fishermen, managers of the fishery and the scientific community in general. To be honest it doesn't matter which side of the fence you come from, be it industry, scientific, recreational or management, not to learn from the Grand Banks and similar incidents would be classed as gross negligence.

 

The reason tax payers money is spent on monitoring and acquiring fisheries data is because its a legal obligation we have under the CFP, besides how would we know if stocks are at or above/below Bpa or Blim or MSY etc. How do we know what F (Fishing mortality) is if no-one is collecting data. Whilst the data are frequently ignored, and there is a train of thought that tells you that it is such an in-exact science, and as a consequence what is the margin of error, the present day fisheries models are the best we have and the only ones we have to work with. The alternative is total ignorance, as opposed to the present educated estimate.

 

If I over-estimate the lobbying powers of the NFFO & SFF, then I think you under-estimate them. The likes of Mike Park, Bertie Armstrong and Barry Deas are skilled lobbyists with a high degree of knowledge of their industry, and fisheries science also. The only critisism I would have is that they are not totally aware of other stakeholders and user groups, but hey what the hell, they could argue "why should I", as long as I look after my boys!!!!

 

Cheers

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Doc

 

quote

However, in the same way that spawning stock biomass data and actual landings data (including the assessed unreported and or under 10m component) are estimated from the limited verifiable data, then so are discards and as a general rule discard data (as with most fisheries data) is considered to be under-estimated,

 

 

 

Deffra have grossly under estimated the Dover Sole landings by the under 10m boats for years, probably by about 60 %, now because of being under investigation by the EU and bringing in the registration of fish buyers and sellers were they are getting more accurate figures, they have now come up with a unworkable quota.

The Eu commission are now talking of cutting the sole quota by 10% year on year until they consider the plaice by catch and discards are at an acceptable level.

 

Do you think that fishermen that fish in such a way that they eliminate any discards should be rewarded, more days or quota?

I fish to live and live to fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.