johhno

Well I've got to say my experience differs somewhat - I spent several years on vessels surveying pipelines and underwater structures and nets were quite a common 'debris' and they didn't just catch fish, one also got a Russian mini-submarine off the Kamchatka Peninsula near Japan in August 2005. The submarine’s propeller was snagged on a fishing net some 625 feet below the ocean’s surface. A remotely operated vehicle rescued the crew.

According to a chap called Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist at York University and adviser to the RCEP, "At the moment many of the methods we use to catch fish [such as bottom-trawling] destroy habitats in the process. People have likened it to clear-cutting a forest to catch squirrels.". "If we were to use more environmentally sound methods, like hook-and-line and traps to catch fish, then it would have much less impact. So I guess there's an answer for you.

The main differences I see between the steps taken are : - A strict no discards rule - A unique system of closing areas where juvenile fish are detected are these effective differences or just another way of saying the same thing.? As for the statement that overfishing doesn't affect stocks, it doesn't make sense, if that were the case, then why introduce the measures the fact sheet was so proud of ??

That's a pretty naive and inflammatory post - there are many activities in life where people don't put their hand in their pocket, but still have a legitimate right to complain. Freshwater, coarse and game, fishing has been developed to the point where fisheries are reasonably protected and as soon as that protection is threatened ie: when eastern europeans started taking carp etc from freshwater fisheries, bye laws etc were quickly enacted to address that. There is no (effective) protection of the fish around the coasts, nor any development of the coastal fringes to create RSA waters, in fact, there seems to be quite some focus in restricting the areas where RSA may take place. Once such things as artificial reefs and other fish holding environments are created and destructive commercial activities are banned, then by all means, introduce some form of licence.

Didn't say it was, just using it as a marker for the growth of Hull and the growth of it's trawler fleet which at one time was the pre-eminent fleet, and now ................

They went 'high altitude' fishing because ther wasn't enough cod left in the North Sea to support the industry. Around 1880 following the discovery of the Silver Pits there were around 400 smacks working out of Hull, by 1896 there was around 200 steam trawlers, by 1936 there were very few working the North Sea but the Hull trawling fleet stood at around 300 vessels.... and now .... speaks for itself.

Peter R - there was a discussion on the Scottish Mackerel season being curtailed http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=210372006 with the conclusion that the boats have got too big and the factories have got too big for the quotas. Not cod I know, but part of article stated " We had boats taking in excess of 3,000 tonnes in a single landing. One skipper said that for a seven-minute tow he had 1,000 tonnes of mackerel alongside. " 1000 tons at say approx 1lb per fish is around 2,000,000 fish for a SEVEN minute tow. Definitley need a XXX Super Duper Cyclone Scooper for that !!

Why not move away from personal agendas and just let 'market forces' take care of it, if people want cod only matches tell them to organise them and if they are really interested then they'll survive, if not, they won't. Fotr those that prefer rod watching to catching anything, why not offer a Halibut only league.

I always use rag/herring for flounder, can't say I've seen any great difference when using whites but I've never had much luck using lug. Most important I think is to use fresh bait.

I'd say you were quite right, as the processors, like any other industry will go with the cheapest source as did customers of the the coal, iron & steel, car, textiles and many other industries and though all of those in turn argued that they were indispensable to the nation/economy, they were all worked around (in one form or another) until reality finally bit.

actually it's at least 0.2%

no he won't

That many "rubber" fish I'd believe

What I can't imagine (means it boggles my imagination, no disputing what's said ) is the following quote - " We had boats taking in excess of 3,000 tonnes in a single landing. One skipper said that for a seven-minute tow he had 1,000 tonnes of mackerel alongside. " 1000 tons at say approx 1lb per fish is around 2,000,000 fish, so boats landing 3,000 tons would be landing 6,000,000 fish --- them boats must be too big. The overall early season catch they were aiming at was 32,000 tons, which would be around 64,000,000 fish. Really dwarfs my take home last season !!

--> QUOTE(Norm B @ Feb 5 2006, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not a scientist or in any way qualified to speak on matters regarding the science of fish but surely logic says that if a stock of any fish is in decline, for whatever reason, stopping the fishing for it will help it's recovery but to continue to fish a declining stock will hasten it's end, or is there something I'm missing in this debate? Absolutely correct logic, totally irrefutable and inescapable; the only thing you are missing is that some people invested heavily in a dying industry and until they are subsidised out of it, they will continue to wring the last penny out of it.

I wonder what would happen if a family man trying hard to keep his books balanced wandered onto a fishing vessel and helped himself to catch/nav gear/personal possessions etc !! If you can't do the time -- don't do the crime.

If you look at their website you will see it's not just CYA. Probability forecasts allow you to see the average forecast for each of the 10 ensemble members in order to view where the highest confidence is, but in summary - for " each of these runs, the model is run a further 10 times, each time with slightly different starting criteria and different physics used. We call each of these runs "ensemble members". This allows us to view the overall confidence in a developing situation." So if you are really into it, you can analyze the results and make your best guess, if not, use theirs.

So it's Ok for your EMP to force your/his views on anglers, but not OK for anglers to promote their views !!

No it's an assertion on your part.

Understood, but I haven't ( = no personal knowledge ) seen them having any success with fish in supermarkets in other countries.

That's a pretty condescending remark, my observation was not a parochial (not even the great whitby) remark, purely a speculation that if Greenpeace are succesful in getting UK supermarkets stop buying fish then the excess created will go somewhere else and then, even though Greenpeace may appear to have 'won' the argument, nothing will in fact change unless there is true management of the fish stocks.

Seems to me that all they'll end up achieving is a reduced presence of fish in UK supermarkets and more 'UK' fish going to foreign markets.

This one seems to have been missed and suggests that quota flouting is endemic within the industry and not just limited. Sixteen people appeared in court charged with flouting fishing quota rules. The group, all members of the Newlyn fishing community, included boat owners, fishermen and a fish auctioneer. It took over an hour for the charges to be read out to the accused as they stood in the public gallery at Truro Crown Court. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displa...wsNodeId=142722

Couldn't agree more, there may be some short term political winning arguments, but the only long term one will be commercial viability, so either the industry becomes viable or it's bye bye. One is tempted to suggest Ostrich farming would be a suitable alternative career path for those who cannot recognise this.

And I thought it was some sort of parallel universe type thing where in one world there are unlimited fish to be caught by everyone and in the other ....... reality