Greenpeace

[wurzel]

Ian there is abundence of monk fish, spurdogs arn't wiped out, in fact no stock has or is ever likely to be, it's remarks like that prove you Know nothing.

 

@atumn@ we'v been down this road before, if the fishermen had bought the quota rights for the lorry loads of fish, the fish would have still been caught, but a third party would have took a sizeable chunk of the profit, OMOTS might be more qualified to explain how the quota system worked or more like didn't work. If it is any thing like the sole quota for the bigger boats in this area by the time you paid for the quota, and there is plenty for sale, you just as well tie the boat up and buy the fish from Tescos.

 

I am off to the river Severn for a few days, pahaps by the time I get back somebody will have come up with a sensible suggestion of what is sustainable fishing.

[Guest NickInTheNorth]

wurzel, very simple question for you, is there any problem with the fish stocks in the sea around britain?

[ColinW]

Here's the commercial fisherman's attitude towards preserving fish stocks. Where the Canadians lead, our fishermen follow. What they said ten years ago is exactly what ours are saying now.

 

http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/n...m?uNewsID=23370

 

An excerpt if you can't be bothered reading the whole article.

 

"In 2003 alone, 5,400 tonnes of cod were caught as bycatch in the southern Grand Banks — about 90 per cent of the total population in that area and a 30-fold increase in bycatch since the fishery was closed."

 

So even though they can see clearly that the stock is close to extinction they are still slaughtering the handful of fish that remain. All this bullshit fishermen come out with about a future for their kids and grandkids makes me laugh. Skippers are just going to take as much as they can while there's anything left to take while the average trawler crew member probably doesn't look further than his next wrap of smack.

[Guest jay_con]

Killing thousands of undersize fish here at the moment.

[Ryford]

Wurzel

 

I have hated the term sustainable fishing because for a number of years, fishery managers and politicians have jumped on the bandwagon without really thinking about it.

 

Historically, sustainable fishing has meant managing the stock(s) on a basis that will preserve and protect commercial fishing business interests. Forget all that nonesense about preserving fishermens jobs because business has been putting the squeeze on the wages part of their overheads since time began. Why else did fihermen buy up hundreds of war surplas engines post 1945? It was all about getting rid of the engineer and stoker, saving weight so enabling more fish and more power to tow bigger gear further. If you don't believe me, look at the landings right accross europe pre and post 45' Take it from me, landings rocketed. Things have not changed, be it dyneema, electronics, lifting bags, engine efficiency and even even that godawful invention, the monofilament gill net.

 

Lately however, politicians and fishery managers have been starting to look at the term sustainable a lot more closely. Indeed, defra and the UK government have linked fisheries with sustainable development which if you take a look at what the UK government mean by that you will get a better picture.

 

It basically says that natural resources are the property of the commons and future generations and as custodians, we must manage those resources not only on a best value basis, but also without predudice.

 

In fact, everything that leon and everyone else have been saying on this forum since it began.

 

You cannot deny that sea angling has always been exluded from any meaningful representation. You cannot deny either that sea anglers have just the same rights over how the resource is managed. If anglers are able to put forward an alternative way of managing a specific stock that stands up to economic and biological scruitiny, well as best as one can achieve with a crystal ball, then anglers have every right to have their voice heard and acted upon.

 

You have a problem with that?

 

AndyR

[Guest jay_con]

Seems to sum it up quite well. I like the dirty harry bit at the end too.

[John Mason]

Good posts by Leon & Andy there - sums up the situation we all face very well.

 

Cheers - John

[Leon Roskilly]

wurzel:

 

You still have not explained sustainable fishing,

Leon says only taking out what nature can aford,

what does that mean? one boat working every 100 miles, or pahaps 500 miles, useing big meshes and only catch the big fish, or small meshes and leave the big fish to spawn, or pahaps do away with all large boats and have just a hand full of small coble like boats operateing a cottage industry selling what would be very expencive fish to a small amount of privileged people.

Come on I want ideas I could work with not usless waffle, I get enough of that from DEFRA.

Wurzel,

 

The basics is that you match fishing capacity to the surplus that is available.

 

The way that you do that has an infinite number of combinations, and involves all kinds of other social and economic objectives.

 

There isn't one definition of a sustainable fleet.

 

But there is but one definition of fishing sustainably.

 

However you do it, you don't risk taking out more than you should if you want to be sure of having a productive fishery.

 

Even then, you could have a minimum sustainable fishery, where what's available is always on the edge, a small stock able to produce a minimum surplus, supporting a few livelihoods

 

Or you could go for a fishery where there is a large stock able to generate a maximum surplus, supporting many more livlihoods.

 

You could go fo a fleet where lots of people are engaged but each having a small share, and always at risk of insecurity.

 

Or a smaller fleet where each individual is making a good living, with reasonable security.

 

A large fleet of inefficient vessels.

 

A smaller fleet of very efficient vessels.

 

But however you want to compose that fleet, the bottom line is that the amount of fish that is being removed should never be more than the resource can bear.

 

The problem is that too many are prepared to cross that line for personal financial, or political considerations, keeping their fingers crossed that the risk they are taking will always come off.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[stavey]

It is not only the fish stocks i am worried about in my area, it is also the other important species that crawl about on the sea bed like whelks for instance which a lot of our fish feed upon.

 

Because of one and only one very large vessel that has exported tons of his catch to china were i live, the whelk population has been decimated inshore, not only depriving the local fish stocks from a direct food source but also another "hermit crabs" which rely on the discarded shells from the whelks to survive.

 

I think that commercial fishermen do know what the word sustainable means, it is just they dont like it, like the chap with the very large vessel where i live they are like the proverbial large fish in a for ever shrinking small pond, more greed than sense springs to mind............

[Ian Burrett]

wurzel:

Ian there is abundence of monk fish, spurdogs arn't wiped out, in fact no stock has or is ever likely to be, it's remarks like that prove you Know nothing.

Yer Wurzel

 

And there's more cod in the North sea than there has ever been,

 

 

Europe is paying the fishery scientists big money to tell, a pack of lies.

 

Bradshaw organised Hurrican Katrina to force up the price of Diesel.

 

The government has polluted the Lug worm beds so that they don't catch inshore fish.

 

The small eyed and cuckoo ray haven't been fished to near extinction. they are just playing hide and seek.

 

Got to go, there's a Dodo knocking at the door.

 

Sorry for making stupid remarks Wurzel, but you started it.

 

[ 25. September 2005, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Ian Burrett ]