Jump to content

Can commercial fishermen and sea anglers work together?


Ian Burrett

Recommended Posts

Damned right!

 

I am sick of hearing about what a bunch of working class heroes, braving the elements, fishermen are.

What they really are is a bunch of thieving, tax evading, crooks who will break any rule they see fit as long as they can turn a profit.

It's dangerous, yeah sure it is, so is dealing coke. Doesn't make me respect drug dealers though.

 

Why they come on here, an ANGLING forum remember, is beyond me.

 

your slanderus post is as small minded and very very wrong for no wonder commercial do not want to work with the likes of you grow up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SOUNDS LIKE A DOSE OF IF CAP FITS MATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ian Burrett Jul 14 2006, 08:29 PM Post #1

 

 

Member

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 1,178

Joined: 6-May 04

Member No.: 4,955

 

 

 

The fishing news is conducting a poll to see if commercials and sea anglers can work together

Detaiks at http://www.fishingnews.co.uk/heighway/home.htm?site=fnw

 

I recon we must have rattled a few cages for them even to consider it.

 

 

--------------------

 

member of Save Our Sharks www.save-our-sharks.org

SACN regional co-ordinator for Scotland

www.onyermarks.co.uk

 

 

I think we should all respond with a over wellming YES! I think we could work together and in the long run I feel its the only way.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should all respond with a over wellming YES! I think we could work together and in the long run I feel its the only way.

 

It's not the only way. It's just that the other way will take longer.

 

 

It would be nice if we were able to work together. Both sides putting pressure on the government might achieve something. But sadly commercial fishermen have shown us that they consider the fishery to be theirs alone, and will not budge an inch on any proposed conservation measures, even if those measures might benefit them in the long term.

 

It's true we want the same things, ie, more and bigger fish, but our view3s on how to achieve it are miles apart. We recognise the need for restrictions now to gain benefits in the future, whereas the commercial sector are still waiting for someone to wave a magic wand.

Edited by Steve Coppolo

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all my fish go's to europe not bothered about the supermarkets

 

er, Steve. They have supermarkets in Europe.

 

And a higher percentage of fish is sold through continental supermarkets than in the UK.

 

As was said at a meeting I attended recently, it is Wal-Mart that is driving this!

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are short-sighted b****** in both commercial and angling camps as there are responsible ones.

 

I think the beef with most anglers is that it is a closed-shop with the commercials as the only stake-holder. The whole process is so politicised that government simply pay lip-service to the issues and nothing changes. A complete lack of ownership. Our fish stocks are doomed to 'death by committee'.

 

Personally if I was a UK commercial I would want to include the large angling community and fight the EU fisheries policy and lack of any enforcement?

 

A start would be regulating the 1000's of small inshore fisherman and 'part-timers' who net for the black market. Also changing all the stupid local by-laws to a common UK-wide policy.

 

But without anyone enforcing legislation it would be pointless. Every weekend I see the rules being flouted, I've called the EA many times woth only 1 follow up call :(

 

JRT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then the commercials would be able to afford the luxerary of conservation

 

Conservation is not a luxury Steve, without it men like you earning a living from what the sea has to offer are doomed.

 

If the rest of the world aspires to our standard of living, then we need another 3 planets to service the demands on the environment.

 

That's why it's not just within our 12 mile limit that we need conservation of fish stocks, it's a worldwide problem.

 

There is massive demand for fish, but the environment simply cannot produce fish at the rate at which it is being consumed now.

 

 

If you have 100,000 tonne of free swimming fish, you can safely remove 2,000 tonne each year which will be replaced, the fishery is sutainable. (the figures are illustrative only)

 

If you take 3,000 tonne, then next year you are down to 99,000 tonne, and can only safely take 1,980 tonne.

 

If you take 3,000 tonne again, you are down to 98,000 tonne and can only safely take 1,960 tonne.

 

 

Slowly at first, but soon enough other factors come into play.

 

The fish start getting smaller, producing less spawn per fish.

 

The ratio of older fish, that produce the most spawn which gives good fry reduces.

 

Females, being larger than the males, are disappearing at the fastest rate so the ratio of spawners per tonne is reduced so that the Spawning Stock Biomass calculations are way out.

 

Unfortunately fishery managers have gotten used to ignoring the scientists, because they seemed to have gotten away with it in previous years, and don't understand the principles of negative compound interest.

 

And suddenly it's all gone, and it's the scientist and fishery managers that are getting the blame from fishermen and politicians.

 

That is what is behind the new move by the EU to try and manage stocks to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), only taking out what nature can give.

 

(see

 

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/fisheries/news_co...inf06_39_en.htm

 

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/fisheries/news_co...inf06_40_en.htm )

 

But to get to MSY means rebuilding diminished stocks, which means increasing limitations on what is being taken now so that more (not less which is what is going to happen anyway) can be taken in future.

 

And that is difficult to do in mixed fisheries, so fishing effort on stocks that are relatively abundant is going to have to be trimmed to protect the more vulnerable species taken as bycatch.

 

 

No one is going to wave that magic wand Steve, withdrawing us from the CFP, 'giving us back' our exclusive 12 mile zone (which we never had! We only had control out to 3 miles before 1983, and it is the traditional right of some nations to fish within our 12 mile limit (and vice versa) that was preserved when the CFP came about, at leat now they cannot come within 6 miles and nations without traditional rights cannot legally get inside our 12).

 

The cry, 'if we don't take it, someone else will' is a call to destruction of the fish, the inshore fleet and your life as a fisherman Steve, perhaps sooner than you possibly imagine if fishermen don't stop regarding conservation as a luxury, but something that needs to be fought for tooth and nail.

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But without anyone enforcing legislation it would be pointless. Every weekend I see the rules being flouted, I've called the EA many times woth only 1 follow up call :(

 

When you call the EA it's important that you get the name of the person that takes your call, and specifically ask for update feedback.

 

The EA have had their budget slashed again, which means that their is less money available to spend on enforcement work for already overstretched officers.

 

That is a political decision and if you feel that they are providing an unsatisactory level of enforcement, write to your MP, giving examples, and ask that more money be made available to the EA to carry out such work.

 

Whilst the public seem to be ignoring the problems caused by reduced budgets, the bean counters in the treasury will just squeeze harder on the next spending review.

 

 

(The EU is calling for stricter enforcement by the nation's responsible for fisheries enfocement within EU waters. See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/fisheries/news_co...inf06_42_en.htm )

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perception problem comes about because the CFP in it's unadulterated state gives every nation's fleets equal access to every other's nation waters, right up to the beaches.

 

So, 'we gave away our right to control the fishing in our waters'

 

However there is a 'derogation'to that right of equal access that is up for review every 10 years (we have 8 years until the next review).

 

The derogation, aiming to preserve 'relative stability' gives each nation the right to manage it's 'own' waters out to 12 miles, with 'traditional' (pre CFP) rights for some nations to continue to fish within another's 12 mile limit, but not within 6 miles.

 

(Although the derogation comes up for re-nogotiation every 10 years and those opposed to the CFP and the EU make a lot of noise about other nations' boats coming up to our beaches, it is always so much hot air, and I find it inconceivable that the derogation will not be almost automatically renewed)

 

So, those youngsters, and those with short memories, encouraged by mischief-makers, have somehow got the impression that there was once a golden age when we controlled all the fishing in what has now become 'our'waters, and those rights were given away when we became members of the CFP.

 

Admittedly, if we hadn't joined the EU, then as a sovereign nation we would theoritically now have control out to the median line, or 200 miles, but as with Norway, because stocks are inclined to move across borders made by mankind, we would still have to enter into negotiations with the EU about access outside of our limits, and EU access within out limits, and quotas agreed on stocks that move across the borders.

 

Norway, like Iceland has a far greater dependence on fishing than the UK, and it takes little imagination to realise that the UK alone, negotiating against the might of the combined EU would still get the rough end of the stick, and there would be more important trade deals to be struck on things like energy etc that our fishing rights would need to be bargained against.

 

At least within the EU, and the CFP, we have membership influence over European fishery policy including access rights etc which we would have no influence over at all from the outside.

 

People who argue that all we have to do is withdraw from the CFP for everything to be rosy with our fish stocks, free from any outside influence are being incredibly naive (or attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of others for an entirely different agenda!) .

Edited by Leon Roskilly

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Ian

quote

I absolutely agree with that statement but the problem lies in the commercials believing that they have a God given right to ALL the fish in the sea. They don't believe RSA's should have any of THEIR FISH, they have had all the say for so long they actually believe that the fish in the sea are THEIRS, we anglers have no right to them at all. They fish for a living, we fish for pleasure. They don't appreciate the jobs that rely on us fishing for pleasure, more jobs than rely on them fishing for a living. It's about time the pendulum swung the other way for a while.

 

 

What anglers don't seem to realize is that the only fish that we concider as our fish are the ones in the fish box's.

 

Hello Leon

 

Being suckered in by the walffle again.

 

Quote

 

Conservation is not a luxery Steve, without it men like you earning a living from what the sea has to offer are doomed.

 

If the rest of the world aspires to our standard of living, then we need another 3 planets to service the demands on the environment.

 

That's why it's not just within our 12 mile limit that we need conservation of fish stocks, it's a worldwide problem.

 

There is massive demand for fish, but the environment simply cannot produce fish at the rate at which it is being consumed now.

 

 

If you have 100,000 tonne of free swimming fish, you can safely remove 2,000 tonne each year which will be replaced, the fishery is sutainable. (the figures are illustrative only)

 

If you take 3,000 tonne, then next year you are down to 99,000 tonne, and can only safely take 1,980 tonne.

 

If you take 3,000 tonne again, you are down to 98,000 tonne and can only safely take 1,960 tonne.

 

 

Slowly at first, but soon enough other factors come into play.

 

The fish start getting smaller, producing less spawn per fish.

 

The ratio of older fish, that produce the most spawn which gives good fry reduces.

 

Females, being larger than the males, are disappearing at the fastest rate so the ratio of spawners per tonne is reduced so that the Spawning Stock Biomass calculations are way out.

 

Unfortunately fishery managers have gotten used to ignoring the scientists, because they seemed to have gotten away with it in previous years, and don't understand the principles of negative compound interest.

 

And suddenly it's all gone, and it's the scientist and fishery managers that are getting the blame from fishermen and politicians.

 

That is what is behind the new move by the EU to try and manage stocks to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), only taking out what nature can give.

 

 

Leon

 

So what have scientists said that the commercials have ignored?

 

But it has not suddenly all gone, in some cases it's got better.

 

The EU's need to manage is even greater than DEFRA

 

.

It has nothing what so ever to do with conservation, fish is now a commodity, a valuble commodity, all the EU and DEFRA waffle about sustainable fisheries is just bull, it's all about manoeuvring the right to catch fish into the hands of a few fat cats, plus plenty of man hours spewing out waffle.

 

I still say its just what anglers perceive to which has very little to do with reality, if anglers would listen to the reality perhaps there might be some under standing, I often try to relay the reality but often get accused of being on a different planet , I rest my case

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.