Jaffa

Perhaps because they will not improve the fishing one bit and will take away what seems like the last bit of freedom some of us have from the rain of regulation we in the UK currently "enjoy.". Things are no doubt different in the USA Newt but ime we are under siege with regulation here atm and its far from clear that it leads to better outcomes.

I apologise Colin; misread your post and thought you meant 12 for one boat; six would be normal for whitefish. Chris

I totally agree Ian; static/mobile, east/west, Shetland/ NE and every combination of disagreement and conflict of interests all very real. Yet their reps seem to hold it all togeather, find agreement and a common line and push it through. Big difference surely is that people are paying into it and the reps truly there to represent their members, and not guys whose motives/beliefs /loyalties are unknown and not necessarily tied to the membership? Is money the real big difference here, or is it the disconnect between what the reps believe and what the people they claim to represent do? I don't know what backup Bertie Armstrong has but is it really all that big? An office, and a couple of secretaries by any chance? Unless im mistaken theres no permanent office for lobbying in Brussels and all the rest the greens enjoy. As an example, how about spending some time thinking about this "Golden Mile" ? FWIW its something i could imagine being pulled off, but while idealistic RSA reps may kickstart the idea they are unlikely to have much say on the brakes once the big boys come in and run with it. Where do you imagine it would end up? Chris

Thank you for your opinion on my level of intelligence. It seems to be a reoccurring theme that anyone that disagrees with the official RSA line are branded as either stupid, or in the pockets of the commercials. The report you posted was interesting but also EU-wide so hardly reasonable to drag it into an essentially UK conversation imho Our fleet has shrunk dramatically, black fish landings etc have been stamped down on. Last i heard Spain did not even know how many fishing boats it has, but if that is or is not actually i big deal i don't know; for each country the problems /answers will be different. It seems to me that you wish to paint all fishermen as bad and EU officials as holding the answers - which is a total joke, before you look at a single line of that report. If you do want to break the report down and discuss each bit then whose going to complain about that? Chris

Except that the volumes of fish taken by boats fishing for pelagic species like herring/mackerel are of a different scale to the whitefish we usually think about, and the fact is that most of the pelagic stocks are in good health while its the whitefish that are the worry. If Colins reference is to to a boat with a 12 man crew then that sounds unlikely to be any whitefish boat.

He was just expressing his opinion; that still allowed ? I agree that a common enemy is the Greens and the way government will be happily influenced to raise money on the back of green arguments, but like FF's copy and paste nonsense , i doubt many will change their opinion when you assume others are too stupid to understand this stuff. Its hard to see who the commercial reps are supposed to sit down and talk with. SACN and the rest do not represent many RSA but the commercial organisations do represent most of the commercials. Who would the commercials actually be talking with? A genuine grass roots angling body with widespread support whose views can be taken as a fair reflection, or a few busybodies , some of whom might instinctively have deep ties to the politics and ideas of the green movement? Just MO BTW ever looked at OATA (Ornamental fish industry body) and you might be surprised at how much it achieves with so little. It of course does have the financial backing of many, big and small, in the trade. Perhapsd partly because it does not do the moral rights lectures

Totally beyond me why you continue to put this nonsense up as if its some kind of arguement . Its so far from the reality that i've lived that its totally alien. Perhaps others understand it better and can point out my sheer stupidity. What utopian planet are these guys from and think they are living in? And you reckon that copying and pasting this stuff into an angling forum will make a ton of anglers get "onside". Lmao

Cracking article Glenn. Iain is spot on: "I love all types of fishing but there's something primitive and romantic about paddling out into a summers dawn, it feels like this is how fishing should be done, and indeed was done all them years ago. With it you get a great sense of oneness with your surroundings and with that mutual respect. I was once followed by about 20 seals at Gristhorpe all fascinated by their strange visitor. You can also pull in anywhere, at the base of a cliff or a reef, have a brew or a call of nature - what boat can do that? You have the ability to weave in and out of rock marks without spooking fish. And to put a modern angle on sea kayak fishing it is totally "green", no fuel costs, minor maintenance costs, no harbour fees, no engine failure." Chris

Congratulations Ian, I may disagree with your views on many things, but I admire the hard work you guys must have put in to get so far this quickly. All the best, Chris.

That would be my take on it for one.

Hi Peter, Would not surprise me one bit. Don't know much about it but would like to understand more. Have you got any links or information on the thornback issue? Im still curious as to why the American barndoor skate is apparently still on the Red list of endangered species when American fisheries scientists say is not even overfished, never mind endangered! I think they harassed the Scots teams because it was easy to do; the Ocean Star/crest pairing they picked on for the last campaign were only small boats. No media office and tight links with London for them to fight back with. Just wish someone was able to bring a civil prosecution against Greenpeace like that Canadian Salmon farmer had the balls to do against Don Staniford. Guess none of the victims in Europe have the clout of the environmental groups though Fwiw Staniford is apparently back in Europe, working for "Pure Salmon" and i've seen his opinion quoted on salmon issues. Yet to see a paper point out the judgement against him though Have managed to find the name of the program, it was Radio 4's "The Investigation" . Should be on their listen again service, or theres a potted account here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7127182.stm Its incredible stuff; our taxes paying green groups to influence the EU . I

Scotland does not have SFC's and Defra / Mr Shaw are not the first port of call if you happen to live north of the border. Fwiw i've done a fair few hours freezing my b***** off helping to enforce fishery regs Did you serve on a SFC board?

My abilities are what they are, and surely not much in the overall . You seem convinced of you "rightness" so theres no discussion allowed there Btw is it true you were on a SFC board?

And while im on a bit of rant, perhaps might be worth a few of you digging into the funding of that Prof that is being quoted in all the doom and gloom headlines atm. Some might suggest hes the Stig, some might draw attention to funding and American foundations As if! Never know unless you go prod a bit though. I wonder if she paypacket of the journalist doing the prodding we hear about is honest?

If they cannot define it then how can they legislate on it? It looks barking mad to me. Btw anyonw catch the R4 show this week that high-lightned the fact that the EU pay the green groups to lobby them? Friends of the Earth apparently get half a million, and its another half a mill to the other big ones. No commercial org gets that kind of insane funding yet we are programed to believe industry bad, green warrior good. FWIW, from what i've seen its the green industry that is out of control and accountable to no one, The defence for all this spending of our money? I heard one lobbyist defend it as a means for the EU to "gain expertise on issues" . Among the examples he used was fisheries; ie the Green view is now to be taken as "expertise"?. These groups get paid by the EU to lobby while others (RSA,commercial, love them or hate them as you will) get nothing? Something well weird going on here and its about time people started being cynical "bastards" and prodding a bit IMHO. But what do i know? just another guy. I Chris

My "commercially biased view" ? Your entitled to your opinion HA, and your right in so much that i have had some experience of commercial fisheries and that has helped form my viewpoint. The biased bit could be read two ways though From my viewpoint, it seems to me that most of the posters that have knowledge of commercial fishing are a lot less damning than those that don't. Your wee list has me totally lost. What are you trying to say, or is it the usual nonsense? If you want to talk about particular situations ,like damge by beamers in particular areas then a conversation is possible . If , as it seems to me, you merely want to trot out a load of green cliches about the evil of commercial fishing then go ahead and continue doing more for the comercials "cause" than all the RSA reps put together ! (just MO ) Chris

Hi Toerag, thats a definition I used to believe in but there are big problems with it. I think most people accept, and the plankton surveys back this up, that conditions around the UK are changing (normal change/a result of fishing/ climate, etc etc; take your fav theory and argue loudly-take your pick) which means the fish populations will also change. It gets hard to see how you can assume some nice model works, and like you suggest, there can be all sorts of things going on that make it a nonsense. I can't see how your definition works.: The idea that you can put the same effort in every year and expect similar results, even if you take fishermen out of the equation as something that changes things, makes no sense.

Cheers for that Challenge; its not something i'd seen. I've read it and reread it and still have not a clue what it actually means They intend to manage fisheries to get the best long term benefits for who exactly? the government? green ngo's? anglers? . What the hell are "environmental limits"? have you any idea; if not has anyone? They want "everybody to have a say in how fisheries are run, regardless of their actual involvement with them?! That will get us better fish stocks?! This stuff is insane imho, and still does not help me to understand what is meant by "sustainable " and what it actually means. Chris

It seems an obvious one to me fwiw. If your a charter skipper you read the FN and other commercial stuff because its important to what you do. At the end of the day both RSA and commercials kill fish and are also dependant on good stocks. What other grouping has those same priorities? Sure as hell is NOT a prority for the green groups that seem to provide so much of the ammunition for RSA we see atm. Its easy to point out the areas of conflict between RSA and commercials but if you know anything about the comercial sector at all then you know there are some pretty bitter conflicts there too at times; static vs mobile for instance and there are often no easy answers, but thankfully i have'nt seen too much of the real h8 stuff i now see stirred up by, imho essentially greens with an interest in angling, and out and out ignorant posters, who have zero knowledge of the subject but feel they have some kind of right to dictate other peoples lives. Fwiw i suspect the latter is due to our Imperial, the world is all red, upbringing. But hell, what do i know ... Reality is that green groups. with insanely large budgets, and good connections to media and marketing are aiming for all fishermen- it just don't fit into their worldview. Commercials/RSA both will be screwed imho. For whatever thats worth .... Chris

Joanna Blythman, the author of that, IMHO, joke of an article, is apparently not a biologist, a fisherwoman (Rsa or commercial), but is a restaurant critic with a regular, and apparently admired, column in the Herald! Heres a nice piece where she raves about the turbot and salt cod served in some exclusive edinburgh restaurant: Sunday Herald She does not say where they were sourced from though Did you enjoy reading those articles FF put up btw? Chris

Theres also a picture here for those that wish to be impressed or disgusted: I think hes 20 yrs behind the times though, and rather than being hung drawn and quartered for landing the first porbeagle shark in Wick in 2007, i'd suggest he would have been better to have slaughtered many in Cornwall in 1977, then retreated north with his winnings so he could instruct the next Mr Mackay in what was expected of him Good on him;. Lets hope him and Sandtiger get together to try and work out whats in their best interests as Charter baot skippers up there, and they don't listen to the angry hum coming from the colony insects

Just to clear one point up,; does anyone have a clear and concise account of exactly what this under 5% discard achieved by the Fruitful Bow is about? I take it that, from what i read in the fishing papers, and the accounts of trips from places like Whitby, that there are more cod on the ground, so have to accept there will be more discards than there were a year or two ago. Just seems obvious but perhaps im thick. These discards, apparently of perfectly edible/marketable fish continue because thats what the cod recovery plan demands. It strikes me that Wurzel has a very good point in asking just which decade the end result of this plan is supposed to place us. Which year in our history has the "correct" spawning biomass of cod? Barry, might be worth your while looking a bit more at the monkfish issue if you want a true glimpse into wonderland For starters, our monkfish are actually two species, not one. For another they are a deepwater species that (iMHO) come up and "invade" our shallow waters when conditions suit. They are capable of swimming/hopping from Shetland to Faroe (think of just what that involves and what it does to any idea of a local population; and because we have never studied them much most of this unknown. Yet we have quotas on them. Qutoas that will have all sorts of knock on effects. "Monk"fish. Perhaps the perfect place to try and get a sense of how nuts it all really is? Chris

So you don't see the NFFO campaign having anything to do with the change then? ! I assumed they "won" because they had a good case and fwiw i certainly think their argument was a good one.... though of course thatoften matters little with government, when the decisions are made Not sure i understand what you mean about the commission being worried about the angling lobby either ? Why should they be worried? and worried abouit what? Chris

"The whole setup" ? I take it you view it as some kind of conspiracy then? Can "we" scrap individual boat quotas? Im not trying to be clever here cause i have no idea. Can it be done? I have a lot of sympathy with the no discard idea and am very much drawn towards it. Land all you catch just seems like common sense and yet we are a long way from that happening. It might be a very good idea but i'd like to know why it hasn't happened to date and what the implications are. Would'nt you? You tag onto the end of that, almost an an automatic reaction IMHO, Why? To stop all Prawn trawling and turn to creeling might be a good idea for the West Coast? After all you have both trawlers and creelers over there. On the east its all trawl. Is there good reason for that? I used to be a Scallop diver; apparently the "coolest and most eco friendly form of fishing known to man (I dunno but certainly the best fun i ever had:D ). I gave up because the legal implications of what i was doing, esp employing others, were somewhat problematic in terms of the ever increasing legislation the HSE were directing at diving. Legislation that was intially , and rightly aimed at the high death rate among North Sea Oil divers. Thing is, that once you make a body responsible for something, its amazing just how many people they feel they then need to take responsibility for, and money from HSE aside, its a fine way of fishing certain waters; ie those under 30m depth, in an area where you can get the shelter to dive enough. I suggest to you that eg most the East coast is not suitable for this, so what you are really saying is ban scallop fishing in most areas of the country?