JB

Hi Ian, thanks for the info. It takes 3.5 tonnes of wild feed to produce 1 tonne of dried fish food, and 1.1 tonnes of food to produce 1 tonne of salmon. Let us assume cod need the same amount of feed as salmon. If this cod farm in the Shetlands is to produce 15,000 tonnes per year by 2010, they will need 3.5 x 1.1 x 15,000 = 57,750 tonnes of wild feed fish per year to support 1 cod farm in the Shetlands. And there are other cod farms already planned. Loch Awe Pike, would you agree with this calculation?

Jaffa Hi, Chris. Thanks for putting me right on the first point. I had a feeling it was more than 5 tons but had no easy way of finding out. I realize that the diet of cod is very varied. I have taken many a plastic cup and white pebble out of a cod’s stomach. And I know someone who found a cassette tape in a cod’s stomach, and it still played. (It was not Des O’Connor, though.) We have also found over the years that they are very partial to rubber, plastic and painted pieces of lead. I remember reading somewhere that sandeel made up 40% of a North Sea cod’s diet. This sounds very high to me, but I do believe it is a very important part of their diet. Maybe you can help on that one. We fish over a large area of the North Sea. It seems the only way to keep up good regular catches these days is to ensure that no single area gets too much hammer. Like most types of fishing, we don’t fill up every trip, but we do keep up a good average catch. Our area of operation varies between 53 and 57 degrees North and off to 4 degrees East, in places. According to my GPS we have moved over 100,000 miles in the last six summers, so I can safely say we get about a bit. I know most of the very few remaining British fishermen that work these same offshore grounds. We have all come to the similar conclusion that the cod’s diet is made up of far less industrial fish than it used to be.In years gone by we used to catch large quantities of cod full of and/or spewing up feed fish. Now only a very small percentage of our fish do this. This year we have seen a very large number of tiny dover soles in the stomachs of cod, so the lack of normal food must be putting some pressure on other stocks. But if we had a sole shortage it would not be the cod’s fault - Wurzel would get the blame for catching them all! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loch Awe Pike, Hi Loch Awe Pike, First of all I know absolutely nothing about fish farming, So it’s nice to have your experience and point of view. A few questions, if you don’t mind? What is the rough make-up of the feed that you give to your fish? It obviously contains dried fish meal and oil. Do you know how much water is extracted from the live fish weight to make it into a part of the feed that you use? (I know that depending on the fish, fish is made up of 70 to 80% water.) How do you see the future of fish farming? Again, I have read that it is a very fast- growing industry. If this is so, do you think it would put too much demand for fish meal and fish oil on our already over-pressured seas? Do you know of any other sources, or proposed sources, for food for your fish product? With the present North Sea sandeel ban, has this put your fish food bills up? If not, what is the origin of your fish food product? I have long thought that replenishing the seas stocks was a very good idea. I am glad to hear from you that the restocking of our seas is achievable. However, over the past few years I have pondering as to whether or not it would do any good. There has been much talk on this forum about sustainable fishing. But I can’t help wondering, under present conditions, how much fish the sea can actually sustain. I am of the opinion that restocking the part of the North Sea that I fish in, say with newly-hatched cod, would just create a little more food for the already starving bigger fish. Sorry about all the questions! JOHN BRENNAN

Fishing News, 5th August this year, front page article headlines: “Stocks ‘best for a decade’ says skipper after bumper trip”; second page article headlines: “1720 boxes in 9 days’ fishing!” Many comments were made on this forum about these two headlines. To my knowledge, no-one commented on the tiny article on page 5: “Organic cod farming gets off the ground in Shetland”. Briefly, a company hopes to achieve organic status for its farmed cod later this summer, and wants to produce 15,000 tonnes of the product annually by 2010. It is also planning to establish other cod farms in the Shetlands. In my view, cod farming is far more damaging to angling and commercial fishing than what was reported on the front two pages of the Fishing News. Unless another source is found, farmed cod will be fed on pellets produced from fishmeal and fish oil. Fish meal and fish oil at present predominately comes from industrial fishing - or ‘feed fishing’, as it is known. I am, and always have been, against industrial fishing. They say it takes 5 tons of feed fish to raise 1 ton of farmed fish. If that is true, would it be a reasonable assumption to say that the same 5 tons of feed fish would also raise 1 ton of wild fish? Industrial feed fishing and food/recreational fishing under the present conditions of our seas are not compatible. Whether they ever were is debateable. A farmer cannot cut and remove grass for hay, and keep cows in the same field. I know it’s not as simple as that, but you will get my drift. If the EU wants cod farming, and consequently a great increase in industrial fishing, then they should let us know, help the commercial fishermen to get out of the job, and encourage anglers to take up golf. If, on the other hand, they want recreational and food fishing they must stop or greatly reduce feed fishing, and discourage cod farming until another food source for the farmed cod can be found. John Brennan

On the 18th October, Stavey wrote: Hi john, it must be said i suppose you run quite a unique buiness realy sort of in between the two of normal sea angling chartering and commercial fishing because of the amount of anglers and the lenghth of those trips and by the amount of fish these anglers catch and take home? and on the commercial side that i presume you do not have or use a commercial licence and there for do not have to opperate under their laws? ie, quota/days at see/etc. There may come a time though were you may have to choose when changes of the present rules come about? you say that cod for you is what its all about understandably so, but i predict in the not so distant future bag limmits on cod will be implemented, how are you going to build up existing as well as new costumers when all you are atracting is anglers that place the most important aspect of their sea angling hobby is on their stomachs, will these same anglers book you as much if they are restricted to only two fish a trip? You may also have to look beyond cod in the future and consider other species? but wait a minute why not prove me and anyone else wrong that cod can be a sporting species? fished correctly i would think they are, and they deserve a bag limit, and the promotion of protection for this very reason and not because the local chippy is running out. If we expect the commercial fisherman to swallow no go areas and shortened quota's and bigger mesh sizes etc, on the arguement that the cod's value is only as a food item, then you will have to exept those same measures and make sacrifices as well in the amount you will be able to take anyway, so why not start now and build up the custome that want to practice catch and release or bag limmits, youve got all the mod cons to do this and maybe you would not have to steam so far, you see john attitudes must change as regards sea angling and its time to think with our heads and not are stomachs.......... Then Ian Burrett wrote: Hi John and Michelle Our fishing is tope and Pollack mixed on a 50-50 basis.although an average trip will produce 12-15 species. When i first insisted all Pollack go back I was told i was committing financial suicide, even by one of my skippers, but the reverse has been the case. One of my great pleasures is listening to a lad who i considered our worst great white fillet hunter telling his mates about the pleasures of releasing fish. Times are changing John In my opinion A charter boat landing £3000 of fish can hardly be called a recreational boat. and should have no complaints if they are classed alongside the commercials in the event of a cod ban. Anglers can be educated to accept less take home fish. cheers Ian In reply: Hi Stavey and Ian. Stavey, you are right, I am in a unique business. As far as I am aware no-one else does as I do. I came completely out of commercial fishing about twelve years ago. I had no confidence whatsoever in our government with regard to looking after fish stocks, the fishing industry, the fishermen or the people of our country who have a right to fish. None of these things - or people - seemed to matter a damn to them. I decommissioned my boat, surrendered my licence, and have never sold a fish for personal profit since. I chose offshore chartering for its uniqueness. If you do something that most people can’t or won’t do, you generally get left alone to get on with your job. The problem is that, in the case of chartering, you have to have some publicity to keep your customer base up. Publicity and success at the job gets you noticed, as it has in this case. Many would have said that, knowing the state of the industry, I should have taken a shore job when I left commercial fishing. I have been at sea all my life and always took great pride in doing my job well, as I do now in chartering. Consequently, I was reluctant to leave the sea. With only sea-going experience and qualifications, what else could I do in a small town like Whitby? Wash dishes, stack shelves, collect supermarket trolleys? Well, I am not quite ready to do that just yet. Incidentally, I suspect that most commercial fishermen feel the same way. All of us on the forum come from different backgrounds, which is a very good thing. We all have different viewpoints and the ability to look at a job from a different direction. I have my own opinion about the decline in fishing and who is to blame - and possibly what can be done about it. But that is for a different thread. When I have more time I may go into further detail, and invite discussion. The short time I have been on this forum has been very interesting so far. I have even learned a little. However, I still think I would be committing financial suicide by insisting all fishing be ‘catch and release’. But I will go part way with your suggestion by recommending and encouraging the practice. In my opinion, anglers don’t readily accept sudden changes. But over a period of time, they will inevitably adapt to change. I remember a bygone era when many anglers were commercial fishermen. In addition to having a day out, they expected to make a profit on the fish they sold. Many years ago, on a bad fishing day, I distinctly remember one fisherman saying, “It’s been a complete waste of time today; it’s even cost me to come!” Whether through a lack of fish locally; or the fact that selling fish without a licence is now illegal; or an awareness of the environmental impact of angling, general attitudes appear to be different. Most angling is now done for sport and/or to catch fish for personal consumption. At the end of our season, we intend to review our website. We already have a statement that it is illegal for anglers to sell their catch – we thought this was important, as not all anglers are aware of this law. We will address the issue you have brought up by working on a piece encouraging ‘catch and release’. I know it’s only a small thing, but maybe other charter skippers will do similarly. At least it’s a start. And it may lead us towards the acceptance of bag limits - which, whether we agree with it or not, will be inevitable one day. JOHN BRENNAN

Ian, Little bit more time to reply… Catch and release for all fish is a very valid point you’ve brought up, and I can see how it has worked well in your area, with your type of chartering. I have taken a look at your website, and your photographs. Although you obviously catch many species, judging by the predominant number of anglers proudly holding tope, these must be your main target species. Tope is more of a sporting fish, and you get the pleasure of the fight. The skill of the angler plays a great part in the successful landing of the fish on comparatively light tackle. Tope, until recently, was considered not to be a food fish. Consequently, when an angler books with you, he would naturally expect to catch and release. If you can’t eat what you catch, why kill it? On the other hand, our most predominant and, consequently, most targeted species is cod. When an angler books with us, he expects to be able to take his catch home to eat. Some even expect to fill their freezers. (It’s the old “hunter, provider” thing.) Incidentally, when booking with us, many anglers who fish predominately in the South ask if they will be allowed to keep their fish. When discussing this matter, they tell us that some of the skippers they fish with retain the majority of their anglers’ catch and (we assume!) land it on the fish market. As a charter skipper, it is in my best interest to look after my customers, give them good service, help them catch the maximum of fish they are capable of catching (bearing in mind not all anglers are highly efficient fishing units), and return them to the shore with the best possible quantity and quality of catch. Don’t get me wrong. I would love to catch and release. It would make my job so much easier! We could go off every trip and catch the same fish off the same wrecks. And repeat the process on our next trip. It would also save me thousands of pounds in fuel bills, as we would not have to travel hundreds of miles in the continual search for good fishing. However, with the type of anglers we cater for at the moment, if I made the same statement as you do on your website, I think it would be financial suicide. By the way, a small minority of our anglers do practise ‘catch and release’ when they have caught enough cod to satisfy their needs – or when transporting fish home is difficult (e.g. when anglers fly long distances to us). The only controls I have put on fishing thus far is when we are getting too much fish over a short period of time on a hot day, and the quality of fish may suffer. We either lay until all fish on deck is filleted and in the chiller, or use the time more usefully by moving to another wreck. I will not condone any waste of this precious resource. You asked: Do the lads that are now going to Norway expect to return with sack loads of fish? I have talked with many of our customers who have been cod fishing in Norway, and most complain that the main problem with going there to fish is that you cannot bring your fish back. For most anglers, part of the deal is that their Norwegian skippers get everything they catch to sell – there is no ‘catch and release’ system on these boats. Others, who have obviously been to different places in Norway, say there are special filleting rooms provided. (Apparently the Germans monopolise these rooms. They must put their towels on the filleting tables the night before they go fishing.) In these filleting rooms, fish can be filleted, packed and frozen ready to take home. However, this is a very expensive option, due to “excess baggage” costs. Because of the quantities of cod caught on my boat, you say that we should be classed as “commercial”. That’s an odd comment. Do you consider the problem is simply with the job that I do, or is it that I do my job successfully? The only short answer I can offer is this: as long as it is legal to eat fish, I believe that it is better and more fun for an angler to go out and catch his own fresh cod, rather than buy an inferior product from a supermarket. You asked about the value of the fish caught: Is this figure wholesale or retail price . Binatone was the poster who estimated the value of one catch, based on his experience as a commercial fisherman. I think he gave a ‘first sale’ valuation of the same quantity of whole gutted fish on the fish market. I would guess it was a pretty accurate assessment. As to retail value, I have absolutely no idea - I don’t buy cod in a processed form, other than very occasionally from fish and chip shops. If I were unable to catch my own or get a fry from a friend, I would do without. Hope I’ve covered everything… JOHN BRENNAN

Hi Autumn, I know I have not been particularly popular with you in the past, but I admire what you are trying to do on this thread. Our season comes to a close shortly, so if I can be of any help to you with information etc. for your proposed web site, I would be only too happy to oblige. Must go now, I should have been on the boat an hour ago. John Bennan

Hi Ian, Thanks for the reply. At the moment, I am up to my eyes with a maintenance job on the boat and Michele is now away visiting family for a few days. When she comes back we have a few long trips back to back. So weather permitting we will not be able to get back to you for a few days. I can see where you are coming from. Ideally it would be a direction in which all charter skippers should be heading. Now that our season is drawing to a close, I am thinking of starting a thread on the condition of North Sea cod. Out of respect for Stavey we could reply to you on that one. John Brennan [ 17. October 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: John and Michele ]

Hello, Ian! Michele here, this time. You asked what our anglers do with their fish when they catch in abundance. This is a question I have often asked our anglers, out of my own natural curiosity. In the five seasons I've worked with John, I can honestly say that not once has an angler confessed he sells any of his catch. Of course, this might be because it is not prudent to do so, as we publicise the fact that it is illegal for non-commercial fishermen to sell their fish. However, I tend to believe they are telling the truth. It seems that most of our anglers have lots of family, friends and colleagues eager to share in their fish bounty - as I am sure you have noticed yourself when you've had a good catch. I know that some of our regulars are well geared up and have large deep freezers at home exclusively for fish. I have noticed that the barter system is still thriving in this country. However, I don't actually know the legality of bartering - especially with food products. I have often wondered about it. Okay, I understand that swapping a few fillets for some ale in your local would be illegal, if your fish was going to end up on a customer's plate. But what if the owner was a great mate, and the fillets ended up on his own table? What if you had another friend who was a farmer - is it legal to swap some of your fish fillets for a few lamb chops? There must be a fine line somewhere. Can anyone enlighten me on this score? (On another thread, perhaps, as we've hijacked Stavey's yet again. Sorry, Stavey!) Taking the "£3000 worth of fish fillets" figure already mentioned for an average day's catch: We normally carry twelve anglers per trip. £3000 divided by 12 is only £250 - not an excessive amount, surely? Nevertheless, whether each angler has £50 worth of fillets or £500 worth, our main concern is to ensure every fish caught on our boat arrives on the table in the best possible condition. Over the years, John had seen too many fish "go off" on warm days, and have to be dumped. He used to feel very angry and frustrated if an angler neglected his catch, and consequently wasted it. We both hate the thought that any fish might 'die in vain'. To this end, John had a special on-deck chiller designed and manufactured. It cost a fortune, but has been well worth the expense. We feel that the best we can do is to deliver a good quality product to the quayside. What happens to the catch after that is up to our anglers - and their consciences. Although John is a staunch advocate of an alliance between commercial and recreational fishermen, we are certainly not bringing them together on our boat under the guise of an assortment of anglers! Michele

We are a great nation of complainers. It seems to be the national pastime. Yet we never seem to do anything about the things we complain about. The only time we seem to get organised and take positive action is in times of great adversity - like wars and such. So we must now decide: if we form an angling commercial alliance, do we want to do anything positive? In my opinion, our politicians and civil servants are very happy with the situation as it stands. They are only interested in their own welfare and progress. While commercial fishing and recreational angling is in turmoil, it is good for them. If someone approaches a politician and suggests a good plan for improvement, he will say, "That's a good plan, but it cannot be implemented because we have to consider all parties involved." And so it goes round and round, never getting anywhere. But what do the politicians care? They still get paid at the end of the month. The only thing that alters is that they keep getting pay rises while our livelihood or sport is disappearing. I was impressed with this section of Leon's posting of the Transcript of interview between Helen Styles of 'Dirty Tackle' and Doug Kidd, Fisheries Minister of New Zealand 1992-1998. "What advice would you give to UK anglers now who are fighting for their opportunity to have a go at their fish?" "Get organised. Simple arithmetic impresses Ministers. They are called votes you see, and if people come along who can credibly claim to represent a large number of people, it is amazing how much attention Ministers will give them". If we were able to forget our differences for the time being and form a strong alliance that represented all parties involved, maybe we would be taken notice of when we said, "We expect our politicians to start doing their jobs properly by looking after our interests. If this does not happen, we may all vote for the UKIP next time we are called upon to support our politicians." JOHN BRENNAN

Hi Binatone, thanks for the welcome. Yes, sometimes we do fish the general area you talked about. As you would know, there are a lot of wrecks in that general vicinity. Given the right conditions, the fishing can be superb. Although the day you talk about was not our best day's fishing, it could be rated as one of the many very good ones. But, as in your job, the results we get can be very variable. Weather conditions, water clarity, the skill of the anglers on board, and many other factors play a big part in the amount of fish caught. Consequently, great catches cannot be guaranteed - but we always try to give the best service we possibly can. As you pointed out, all our fish is filleted and chilled, so our customers take home the best product possible. The anglers may catch £3,000 worth of fish on one trip and have poor fishing the next. But, if we look after them and try hard for them, they generally are philosophical about the job, good fishing or not. Most of the anglers that leave the Chieftain after a fishing trip leave her happy. That's the name of this particular game we are in - happy chaps will come and see us again and again. The success of our livelihood depends on this, for returning customers and 'word of mouth' new customers are the mainstay of our business. Our anglers have often reported that other Whitby charter skippers have told them that you never see any fish come off the Chieftain. This is very true! Anglers do not leave our boat with strings of spoiling cod on display. However, if a passer-by looked closely, he would see many heavy 'cold boxes' landed. If he looked inside them, he would see stacks of cod fillets in perfect condition. Not as exciting a view as lots of large intact cod - but our anglers certainly appreciate the filleting services our crewmen offer. If it is any consolation to you, no fish our anglers catch is ever wasted through spoilage, as our aim is to get every fish properly filleted and placed in the chiller as soon as possible. And the parts of the fish that are not for human consumption get returned to the sea to feed the birds and creatures of the sea, instead of being dumped in a rubbish bin on land. Strangely enough, the general decline of fishing has not affected me as much as most. So far I have managed to keep ahead of the game, although it's certainly not getting any easier. Personally, I much preferred the days of fifteen to twenty years ago, when I long-lined all winter and took a few anglers/friends/customers on fishing trips for the summer months. But life is not ideal and bills have to be paid. Which brings me to the point where I return to the original topic of this thread: Until we realise who is really at fault for the decline in fish catches, get our act together, and do something to change the present situation, inevitably things will either stay the same or get worse. You say "Strange how you never seam to be giving us commercials a hard time? Is that because you where once one yourself or is it because you have no need to?" I try not to give any working man, fisherman or otherwise, a hard time for doing their job well. I even hold no malice towards sandeel fishermen. However, I do hold a great deal of contempt for the people who are supposed to be "running the show", the people in power, the people who could make a difference if they could be bothered to do so. But that brings up another question: is it their fault for doing their job so badly, or our fault for letting them? Good fishing to you. JOHN BRENNAN.

Hi Jaffa, I am not the sort of person who goes off half cocked by seeing something I don’t like (or understand) just once, and then saying it must be banned. On the other hand, I don’t believe all the scientists tell us either. Scientists generally come to the conclusion the politicians want them to, especially when politicians provide their funding. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” I came across the industrial sandeel trawlers on most of our offshore fishing trips during the last six summers. And I looked at them and their fishery through the eyes of a practical commercial fisherman. Water temperature may have been a large contributory factor to the decline of the sandeel stocks. But to spend the last forty years knocking seven bells of sh*t out of a fishery that never should have been exploited in the first place must be an even more of a contributory factor. One of the reasons I wrote the sandeel article was to make people aware of what was happening in the central North Sea. One of the main problems is that we draw our conclusions from what we see and what we read about. And apart from an occasional article in the Fishing News, most anglers know little or nothing about sandeels. (As @Autumn@ said recently.) The RSPB was kicking up a stink about industrial sandeel fishing, but they were naturally only concerned about sea birds and the sandeel fishing near to land, in places like the Wee Bankie. When speaking to a representative of the RSPB, he mentioned that, although he was very concerned about the sea birds not getting enough sandeels to eat, he thought that, “surely there were so few cod left in the North Sea that they would be able to find enough sandeels to sustain them?” When I said that there were probably more cod in the North Sea than there were seabirds that depended on sandeels on and around it, he seemed surprised. To be honest, I don’t think he believed me. He was a scientist, but in my opinion he was also a victim of the propaganda that says there is no cod left in the North Sea. OK, there are nowhere near as many as there once were but there are still a lot. You said Before I do get back my immediate thoughts are that that 1k tonnes looks ott for that boat, and its not enough to just guess that theres 10 % bycatch (to me, when I of think any fishery involving tightly shaoling species; by catch tends to be very low. ) Have you any evidence to back your ideas up? Yes, a thousand tons does seem a lot to carry in such a ship as the one in the photograph I posted. But I think you will find it is not over the top at all. To elaborate: I was fishing wrecks at the Southernmost Rough about three years ago, among a lot of sandeel trawlers of similar size and type to the one in my photographs. The Navy turned up, had a look at my boat, and asked what we were doing. Then, to my surprise (as at that time the Navy were not in the habit of bothering anyone other than the British fishing fleet), they steamed to each sandeel trawler in the vicinity. They did not board any of the boats, but proceeded to ask them questions about their target species; when they had sailed from Denmark; and how much fish they had on board. All the answers were very similar. Target species? Sandeels. Sailed from Denmark? About three days previously. Catch on board? Varied amounts, from 700 to 900 tons per vessel. They were all still trawling, and none of them were anywhere near as low in the water as the one in the picture that I posted. So my estimation may even be on the low side. Over the past six years I have seen hundreds of vessels that size and larger, sailing for home, loaded to full capacity, just like the one in the second photograph. Judging by what I have read, there has not been a great deal of research work done on the by-catch of the Danish industrial sandeel fishing. I have read that the Danes have admitted to somewhere between 7% and 10%, but that is only from samples. And few samples were being taken. Apparently, the Danish fisheries department had not got the manpower to regularly check the by-catch, so they left it up to the fish processors to report it. But the processing factories were mostly under the ownership of the sandeel fishermen. We can only draw our own conclusions about the real by-catch figures. Most of my reading on this subject has been material found on the Internet and articles from the Fishing News. I have not done in-depth research, so there may be a lot of statistics and number-crunching figures available that I have not come across yet. I’m sure someone will be able to produce other versions of what I have said. But statistics are mostly numbers on paper, and fishing happens at sea. The two things are worlds apart. Tightly shoaling species caught with a purse seine or similar method generally do not have a high by-catch rate. You target the species with your sonar then make your set. I am told that a good skipper with modern electronics can reasonably accurately estimate the size of the catch from the sonar before the net is dried up. When I was purse seining for herring in British Columbia, we caught plenty of salmon, dogfish, cod and other species. But, as a proportion of our target species, they were probably not a very high percentage. I come from many generations of fishermen. The last three generations, including myself, have had quite a bit to do with trawling. In fact, my family may also be partly responsible for the way trawling has developed on the Yorkshire coast. So I have a reasonable idea of what I am talking about. Trawling for a tightly shoaling species is a very different process to purse seining for them. It is more of a gathering method, and unlike the purse seine that relies on large shoals, it can gather up lots of small shoals and the surrounding populations of other species of fish. So even when fish are plentiful, trawling is likely to have a higher by-catch than purse seining. I was steaming home one night across the inner edge of the Dogger Bank and came across a group of about a dozen Danish sandeel trawlers. With my trawling experience, I thought it would be ok to keep my course, passing quarter of a mile clear of his stern, and well clear of his transducer cable. We would probably mark his net on the sounder, as I presumed his net would be on or close to the bottom. However, the skipper called me up on the VHF and asked me to stop my boat, which (of course) I did. He told me the top of his net was right on the surface, which we indeed saw as we waited for the net to pass. Having made contact with him, we talked for a while. He was interested in what we were doing out there and vice versa. He told me he was fishing his net from the surface to the bottom. We were in 18 fathoms (108 feet) of water. I did not ask him how wide his net was, but on the many occasions when I have seen them hauling their nets, they look to be at least 500 feet on the headline. The fishing circle of their nets must be enormous! I asked him how long they tow for, and he replied that they have transducers and sensors on the net that tell how much fish is in it, so they only haul when there is something worth hauling for. He told me that when fishing was scarce, they would tow for 18 hours or more. At approximately four knots, that’s covering a hell of a lot of ground! With my experience of trawling I think I can safely say that when fishing is good, they will have a low by-catch - possibly 7%. But when the fishing is poor, towing such a large net, with such small-mesh cod ends, for so long, they must have a very high by-catch. I hope I’ve answered your questions. I look forward to more. However, like yourself, I’m going to be very busy for a day or two… John Brennan

Dear Stavey, It's Michele here again. (I've changed my "displayed name" to reflect John's recent interest and participation on the forum.) First of all, I would like to thank you for the kind words - much appreciated! Your poll idea sounds very interesting, Stavey. However, before it was set up, would you first need to do a poll to find out how many of the 7400-plus members of the forum belong to the 'Sea Fishing' sector; and of those members, how many are (or were) working in the commercial fishing industry, or are/were connected with that industry in some way? Judging by the name of this forum - ANGLERS NET - I assume it was originally intended as a meeting place for anglers - and the commercial fishermen members have 'gate-crashed the party'. I'm sure some of the anglers who love their own forum would naturally resent this invasion. However, it seems that (to their credit), more often than not they have warmly welcomed the commercial lads aboard. Reading through a few of the recent threads, I see that some contributors are actively engaged in commercial fishing, and a few others have worked as commercial fishermen at some stage in their lives. I assume there would also be a few with a foot in both camps, perhaps commercial fishing for most of the year but taking anglers in the summer months - as John did for many years, before becoming a full-time charter skipper in the mid-1990's. I therefore wonder how many of your forum members are connected in some way to the commercial fishing sector, and/or have first-hand knowledge and experience of it? My point is this: To get a relatively accurate idea of how many of your fellow-contributors would support an alliance, I think one would first need to know the proportion of commercial to recreational fishermen amongst your membership. If there are only a handful of forum members who are connected to the commercial industry, they would not be a big enough representation to be a voice for their industry on this matter - either for or against. It may be that the commercial lads on this forum are more liberal and open-minded than the majority of their colleagues... but then again, perhaps they are actually even less so! I understand that many of the forum’s anglers are, understandably, very ‘anti’ the commercial guys – yet they may still endorse the idea of an alliance with ‘the enemy’ for the greater good. However, they would probably be encouraged in this sentiment if they knew that the commercial boys also supported such an alliance. Your thoughts, Stavey? Kind regards, Michele P.S. Does anyone know if there is a forum like this one for commercial fishermen? If there is, it would be interesting to get the two factions together to debate this issue. If there isn't, perhaps your angling fraternity would be generous enough to invite other commercial fishermen in their areas to share this forum with them? Then we could all learn from, and about, each other; and a better understanding of our differing viewpoints might develop. It could be a step towards the ultimate aim of joining together to find ways to create a better future for all the fish in our seas.

Good morning, Jaffa. Up early this morning, have been reading through a few of the other threads. Judging by your postings, it seems you are a man who tries to see both sides of the story. I do have answers for your valid questions, but like you, I'm very busy at present and it will have to wait for a little while. One thought, though - I know it's only conjecture, but if they hadn't taken millions of tons of sandeels out of the North Sea over the past 40 years, do you think the cod stocks would have been the same as they are today? I believe that taking feed fish has got to seriously deplete food fish. I also believe that hitting the top end of the food chain hard is a problem that can be rectified, but hitting the lower end of the food chain is irresponsible and considerably more difficult to put right. When I have time, I'll get back to you. Good luck with the new job. John Brennan [Now that John has started to take an interest in the forum, and contribute himself, I have edited my original publicly displayed name to include his. I hadn't realised it would change the name on past postings. Hope I haven't confused any readers. Michele] [ 04. October 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: John and Michele ]

Dear Posters, I happened to be browsing the forum this afternoon, and noticed this thread. It is a topic that is very close to my partner’s heart – so I showed it to him. John (Brennan) has been mentioned on this forum recently, in relation to his article on the sandeel industrial fishing. In it, he was advocating the need for commercial and recreational fishermen to unite in order to fight for the future of fish – and fishing. As John is not a registered member of the forum (I got there first!) he asked me to post a message on his behalf. Before I do so, may I remark that I was very interested in Leon’s and Old Man of the Sea’s earlier postings about the NZ fisheries. I’m a kiwi myself, and found their observations about NZ enlightening. (I hadn’t thought UK fishermen would take much notice of what went on so far away!) When John and I were visiting my home country early this year, we spoke to a lot of commercial fishermen. We were both struck by the positive attitude commercial fishermen had towards their quota system. It seemed they felt fiercely protective of their fish stocks – and were adamant that the only way to safeguard their futures as commercial fishermen was by abiding by the rules themselves. Every single one of them said their catches had improved remarkably in recent years, and it was a buoyant industry again – thanks to everyone observing the strict – yet fair to all (including the fish!) - quota limits. John’s turn now… Michele WHAT DO YOU SEE ABOVE AND BELOW? I see two pictures of the same industrial sandeel trawler - one taken at sea, in a partially-loaded condition; the other in port, fully loaded. [Latter photo courtesy of Dr Euan Dunn, Head of Marine Policy, RSPB] It is a well-designed modern trawler, built to carry the maximum load and to settle in the water in the best position for sea keeping and stability. My estimation is that it has in excess of one thousand tons of fish on board. This industrial trawler will have cost a lot of money to build. To be a viable business proposition this trawler must land catches like this hundreds of times in its lifetime. It cannot be proven, but I estimate that he will have at least a 10% by-catch of whitefish, most of which will be undersized. This fishery has been going on for the last forty years. However, like most commercial fisheries, it has only been going on at this scale - with this type of vessel - for the last fifteen to twenty years. The Danish scientists kept saying it was a sustainable fishery, so nobody stopped them. Based on the scientists “findings”, the sandeel fishermen were set high quotas each year - quotas that they were increasingly less able to fill. Last year the sandeels were very scarce. This year the fishery failed. After a lot of waffle from the EU the sandeel fishery was closed. EU policy seems to be, “Wait until there are no fish left, and then we’ll think about doing something.” THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH FROM THE EU! For those of you who don’t know me, I am an ex-commercial fisherman who operates a large charter boat in the central North Sea. Last year I wrote a ‘sandeel’ article for my website http://www.chieftaincharters.com. The editor of ‘Boat Fishing Monthly’, Jim Whippy, saw it on the website, and asked if he could publish it. It appeared in the September 2005 issue. My article has already been discussed on this forum. Some of you agreed with it, others thought it was rubbish. Irrespectively of what you think of the article (or of me, for that matter!), until someone proves me wrong, I stand by what I wrote. I have spent much of my career catching cod, so I am only speaking about cod in the North Sea. However, I am sure much of what I say will apply to most predatory fish around our shores: Fact 1 We are the only creature on earth that moves our food to us. The rest follow their food around, so if their food source dries up, they have to move or die. Fact 2 The majority of predatory fish are found in the same general areas as the food they eat Fact 3 If you remove the food from an area, there is no reason for the fish to remain in that area. Fact 4 When a fish can not find its chosen food, it will eat other foods - so pressure is put on other stocks. It will even resort to cannibalism and eat its own stock down in order to survive. Fact 5 When fish are well-fed, they grow much faster Possibility: I realise the cod’s breeding cycle can be affected by sea temperatures, but well-fed fish are bound to breed earlier and more successfully than those that are starving. Taking into account the above facts, as long as industrial fishing remains closed, our seas will start to fill up with feed fish again. Those feed fish around our shores will attract quantities of cod and other species of predatory fish, which otherwise would have no reason to be there. Therefore, our fish stocks will increase. If all parties involved in catching food fish forget their differences and unite to fight to keep industrial fishing closed, things will get much better FOR ALL OF US. If we do fight, win or lose, at least we will have proven we can work together - and that’s got to be a good thing! JOHN BRENNAN

Wow! That was a quick response - thanks very much, guys! I'll now put into practice what you've told me to do (but on another thread). And yes, like MJB commented, I am relieved that you posted the same instructions. There's enough confuzzlement in my world as it is! I will now give the thread back to the 'Start them Young' theme again. I hope we'll see lots more photos like the ones above... Thanks again! Michele

What great pictures of the youngsters! I wonder if any of you proud dads can give me advice me on how to post multiple photographs directly into the text area of a message? I couldn't find any instructions in the FAQ, so yesterday I emailed Newt to ask him how to do it. However, he's a busy man, and I haven't heard back from him yet. If any of you who have mastered the technique of posting photographs can enlighten me in the art, I'd be very grateful. Thanks very much! Michele

Dear Brian, Your apology is accepted, with thanks. Your immediate response to rectify your error in identification of the boat and skipper you were unhappy with – (not ours!) - indicates you are a man with great strength of character! When he read your original posting, John had remarked that we have heard the same story as yours so many times before, from anglers who come on our boat after fishing on the Whitby charter boat you actually fished from, that he immediately recognised who you were talking about. I am glad he was proved right. I am sorry you have been put off fishing from Whitby – there still are a few good skippers operating from here. However, there are also good skippers and decent men ‘of the old school’ in other ports. We hope you continue to enjoy your fishing! If ever you happen to be in Whitby on the rare occasion we are in port, please pop on board to say hello and have a brew with us – we’d like to meet you! John says you can never meet too many honest men. Kind regards, and thanks again… Michele