Greenpeace

[wurzel]

If there had been no cod fishing in the north sea for the last 20 years, I honestly don't think things would be much different.

[Guest jay_con]

Ohhhh!!!!

 

If Defra and all the scientists believed this was all about global warming and bringing in legislation would make no difference what soever, then why would they bother??? Why spend tax payers money enforcing something that will not make any difference what soever???

 

Have you a conspiracy theory?

[Leon Roskilly]

@AUTUMN@:

Ohhhh!!!!

 

If Defra and all the scientists believed this was all about global warming and bringing in legislation would make no difference what soever, then why would they bother??? Why spend tax payers money enforcing something that will not make any difference what soever???

 

Have you a conspiracy theory?

I quote from the Comment column in this week's Fishing News:

 

"Like the so-called cod crises that has provided a handy stick with which to beat the industry into the ground, the fuel crises could not have come at a better time for the EU/UK alliance that is hell bent on destroying the British fishing industry."

 

So all fishermen will be well aware that both the EU and the British governments are out to destroy their industry.

 

Perhaps one of our commercial friends can explain why that is.

 

Damned if I can figure out that one :confused:

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Ian Burrett]

The day will come, and hopefully soon, when the majority of commercial fisherman admit there is a problem.

 

When that happens, progress will be easier in obtaining sustainable fishing for all stakeholders.

[wurzel]

Eaqual access for Spain pahaps, any way what government ever worried about saveing tax payers money, how many cival servants rely on the complicated rules and regulations of the fishing industry, they realise the fishing industry is a sinking ship so they are going to orginise you lot instead. OMOTS's perseption of the future policeing of anglers was spot on.

As for the scientists, how much funding would they get if they said "OK there is a problem with some fish stocks but there is nothing we can do about it, its a natural turn of events.

 

How do you know that the cod stocks aren't at normal levals at the moment and the last forty years were abnormaly high.Not forgeting they use to sail from Harwich to Iceland for cod, why do that if there were enough fish on their door step?

[wurzel]

STAKEHOLDERS!!!I'm beginning to hate that bloody word. What would you concider as sustainable fishing Ian?

[Leon Roskilly]

wurzel:

What would you concider as sustainable fishing Ian?

Nature always provides a surplus.

 

For every egg that becomes fry, for every fry that becomes a fish, thousands more don't make it.

 

But that surplus isn't wasted by nature.

 

It goes on to feed other creatures and provide nutrients to grow what others feed upon.

 

But nature's harvest isn't always consistent.

 

In some years there's plenty, some years shortage.

 

Some years the birds take a lot, some years the whiting get to the fry first.

 

But always there is enough left over to maintain the species, and to keep the ecosystem going.

 

And man has become part of that, taking a share and the birds and the whiting have to adapt to that.

 

Except man has GPS, rockhopper gear, monofilament nets, electronic fish finders.

 

'Our' share gets bigger and the birds and the whiting (or whatever) must struggle.

 

But then we get more and more clever, able to take more and more, until we are not only competing with the other creatures, and the overall ecology that depend on the surplus.

 

We start taking what the species itself needs to maintain it's population, and often its ecological niche.

 

No longer are we sustainably taking nature's 'surplus', but taking away the 'seed stock' of future generations.

 

To stop that happening we need a science that knows how this all hangs together, just how much we can take without risking a collapse.

 

We are getting there, but we aren't there yet.

 

In the absence of real and certain knowledge, a wise man would say 'We need to be careful'

 

But then a man whose livelihood and future depends upon taking as much out as he can will say 'Why should I hold back and risk my livelihood if it may be that I don't need to? I've a business to run, a mortgage to pay'

 

What is meant by 'sustainable fishing'?

 

It means only taking out what you are sure that nature can afford to give.

 

Is that happening now?

 

Is the sea full of fish as it was in my grandfather's time?

 

Are stocks outside safe biological limits, as far as we can know?

 

Are sea birds struggling?

 

Whether it's global warming, pollution or overfishing that is partly or mostly to blame, given the circumstances of the present, are we sure that we are only taking what nature can afford?

 

Or are we taking what we need to keep going, and sod the future, closing our eyes to danger and simply hoping that the worst isn't going to happen?

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 24. September 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Guest jay_con]

They will be saying fuel has been put up on purpose next just to ruin the fishing industry - Like they figure in evryones thoughts.

 

I Knew there would be some form of conspiracy theory. Everyone is in league with the spanish so they can come fish here in our waters of abundance.

[Guest jay_con]

Stakeholders ??? is it the word or what it means you dislike so much?

[Ian Burrett]

Perhaps if the Spanish had adherred to sustainable fishing in the Med. they wouldn't need to come here.

 

Wurzel

I live in a fishing community and many of my friends make their living out the sea. We want one thing in common; For our grandchildren to have the same opportunities that we have had. That to me, is sustainable fishing