Someone Is Listening

[Ian Burrett]

QUOTE(Ian Burrett @ Nov 10 2005, 08:27 AM)

The government encourages people to eat fish because of the goodness in omega3 oils. Why not encourage farmers to grow hazelnuts or similar products which are also high in omega3 oils on the set aside lands.

This would help the environment through tree growth, provide habitats for our native wild animals and take the strain off the sea.

 

Farmers are being paid through set aside schemes to be the custodians of the land. We could pay commercial fisherman to be custodians of the seas by using their vessels too carry materials for the construction of artificial reefs and building habitats to encourage breeding fish.

 

VOTE IAN

 

 

Lol Couldn't do much worse than the present lot.

 

Hi Ian,

I did not realise that there was so much difference between Scottish law and English law. The NESFC has a strong angling representation and, as you will know, is trying to do a lot for tope angling. They are also trying to get into the job of policing anglers, which may or may not turn out to be a good thing.

It seems ironical, in the UK we are up to our eyes in EU directives which are supposed to be applied evenly all over Europe, whether or not it creates hardship or even bankruptcy for small businesses. Yet we are unable to achieve uniformity between English and Scottish marine law!

 

JB

 

They are considering giving fish passports now to stop them straying into forbidden waters

Edited November 11, 2005 by Ian Burrett

[Fastd]

Jaffa,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your coments on my post. I would be first to say I know absolutely nothing about commercial fishing. But i did read the net benifits report page by page and every comment I made was based on recommendations in that report, which has a foreword by our illustrious leader (complete with begnign smile)

 

As you are probably aware there is a reply to that report and on the whole it did back almot every recommendation made in that report. One of the major items highlighted was the reliance of the commercial sector on funding for decommisioning as this made it easy for the commercials to persuade the financial institutions to finance new capital equipment based on the goverment funding to decommision that equipment should catch revenue (and therefore the ability of the company to repay the loan) decrease, or indeed stocks be reduced to a non economic level, or quota's be reduced to make further fishing for a particular species uneconomic for that type of boat.

 

I am pretty sure that the actual phrase "boom and bust economy" was used and the recommendation was to try and stop this being the case, which would have benifits for all of us in that the commercials would have a regular sustainable income and the RSA'S would have a stock of fish to go for...everyone gains!

 

Are you daring to suggest that the net benifits report could be wrong...after all it was produced by experts and holds a foreword by my local MP (NO dont blame me for that...I was the one person who voted against him in this constituency)

 

My personal stance is that there is a place for both commercial fishing and recreational sea angling, what should worry us all is the use of the modern massive fish catching machines owned by major corporations who only have a responsibility to the share holders and the balance sheet, and have a loud voice in parliament as we all know that city financiers run this country to a large extent , not the public.

 

Over the years local commercial fishermen and recreational anglers have harvested local stocks and it has worked, but we are now seeing powerfull boats travelling huge distances to take advantage of local stocks, completely depleting them and then starting the engines and moving on to start elsewhere.

 

Why are the french over here trawling in pairs....cos they already screwed up there own waters doing it...why are the spanish dropping hundreds of miles of drift nets in the north atlantic and killing everything they come into contact with...because they have already killed there own local fisheries. The days where hundreds of cobbles left whitby and bridlington harbour every day have long gone. Some cobbles with commercal fishermen, some loaded with charter anglers...and everyone caught fish(personally all I ever did was be sea sick for 4 hours).

 

The other item highlighted in that report is the increase in efficiency of the sub 10m boats. In my opinion these boats are the modern equivalent of the coble. At the time the reglations were introduced they did not pose an appreciable threat to fish stocks . It does seem lke the official attitude is changing regarding these vessels.A comment was made earlier in the post that in the old days a fishing boat wheel house was half filled by a decca navigator and the rest was taken up by a fish finder. These days an angler can fit both off these in a sandwich box. This leaves more space for inrceased fishing capacity, new modern diesels mean more power and efficiency (what happened to stealng the 2 cylinder lister/petter out of a dumper truck?) This increase in efficiency was highlighted in the report and means these craft have been recognised as having a bigger impact on fish stocks. I am sure we will see these boats being subjected to regulations or even the size limit being moved ...9.8m limit would be good

 

Both commercials and recreational sea anglers can (and will have to ) exist, but it really is time the government woke up to the fact that the current economics dont add up in terms of investment v returns , and its time the balance of representation was changed to be more representational of the returns for the treasury.

 

The industries I mentioned all collapsed without government support, there are others i could add to the list, but they have all found alternative employment for those affected. The days when being georaphically isolated and reliance on one specific industry are long gone, the same technology that allows us to discuss this subject here also allow any geographical area to be economically viable with the right investment in technology. I live here in the NE and from been one of the major ship building areas of the world we seem to have become a major call centre. If the government withdrew all financial support from the uk fishing industry the affected areas would soon be targeted for investment by the self same finacial institutions who had lost out by the local collapse of their cash cow industry.

 

Tight lines

Dave

[wurzel]

Basicly the net benifit report is crap, not worth the paper it's written on.

 

You can't imagine the frustration that commercial fishermen feel when they read posts like that.

[JB]

As you are probably aware there is a reply to that report and on the whole it did back almot every recommendation made in that report. One of the major items highlighted was the reliance of the commercial sector on funding for decommisioning as this made it easy for the commercials to persuade the financial institutions to finance new capital equipment based on the goverment funding to decommision that equipment should catch revenue (and therefore the ability of the company to repay the loan) decrease, or indeed stocks be reduced to a non economic level, or quota's be reduced to make further fishing for a particular species uneconomic for that type of boat.

 

 

 

Hi Dave,

Decommissioning, along with fishing licences and fishing entitlement, is a very complex subject. It has come up on this forum several times. I may be wrong, but I think the decommissioning process is not fully understood here. I decommissioned a boat about 12 years ago, so have knowledge of the process, although some of it may be out-of-date.

 

When decommissioning, the main purpose is to get paid for forfeiting your fishing licence. Each licence has a value measured in units, depending on the size of the boat and the horsepower of the engine. The engine horse power has a far bigger influence on unit value than size. For example, an over ten-metre coble with a small engine may have a licence unit value of around 50 whereas a 60-foot trawler may have a licence unit value of 500. There are under ten-meter licences and over ten-meter licences which, to the best of my knowledge, are not interchangeable.

 

WHEN YOU DECOMMISSION YOUR LICENCE, IT IS GONE FOREVER AND THE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO ISSUE ANOTHER ONE TO REPLACE IT. SO AVAILABLE LICENCE UNITS ARE DRASTICALLY REDUCING WITH EACH ROUND OF DECOMMISSIONING.

 

When a fisherman wishes to build a new boat he has to obtain licence units for it. The only way he can do this is to buy licence units removed from a boat that no longer will be allowed to fish. If he wants to build a large powerful vessel he needs to buy units from several vessels and accumulate them. Add to this the fact that, on transfer of a licence, there is a ruling that you lose a percentage of the licence unit value. I think it’s ten percent, but it could be as much as twenty percent. So you might have to take licences off 11 or 12 over ten-meter cobles to build your 60-foot trawler. Also, a certain percentage of your licence units must have a track record for the job you wish to do in your new boat. For example, you cannot go potting unless some (if not all) of your licence has a track record for potting. Therefore, with every round of decommissioning, and every new build and/or engine upgrade, licence units are getting scarcer.

 

This procedure also applies to unit transfers with under ten-meter licences. However, as far as I know, there have not yet been any under ten-meter boats decommissioned.

[wurzel]

Hello John

I wish I had the Time to do posts like that one,

 

I think the more recent formula for decommission is, make it impossible to be viable, then make you an offer the bank won't let you refuse.

 

Fishingsfine

QUOTE

'What about a report 'The Truth, Nothing but the Truth about Commercial Fisheries'? Will that ever come?

 

What truth would you like to know. would you accept the truth?

[Bob Jerunkel]

Bugger!

When I had to give up my business during the recession no one offered me any money for my old van.

Come to think of it I never got anything to stop working either and no one helped me to retrain.

If I remember rightly I never got anything from the social until my meagre savings ran out.

I must remember to start up as a commercial fisherman next time.

[wurzel]

Bob,

It would be the same for me, No decommission for under 10 meters, not that I would want to.

[Jaffa]

Jaffa,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your coments on my post. I would be first to say I know absolutely nothing about commercial fishing. But i did read the net benifits report page by page and every comment I made was based on recommendations in that report, which has a foreword by our illustrious leader (complete with begnign smile)

 

As you are probably aware there is a reply to that report and on the whole it did back almot every recommendation made in that report. One of the major items highlighted was the reliance of the commercial sector on funding for decommisioning as this made it easy for the commercials to persuade the financial institutions to finance new capital equipment based on the goverment funding to decommision that equipment should catch revenue (and therefore the ability of the company to repay the loan) decrease, or indeed stocks be reduced to a non economic level, or quota's be reduced to make further fishing for a particular species uneconomic for that type of boat.

 

I am pretty sure that the actual phrase "boom and bust economy" was used and the recommendation was to try and stop this being the case, which would have benifits for all of us in that the commercials would have a regular sustainable income and the RSA'S would have a stock of fish to go for...everyone gains!

 

Are you daring to suggest that the net benifits report could be wrong...after all it was produced by experts and holds a foreword by my local MP (NO dont blame me for that...I was the one person who voted against him in this constituency)

 

My personal stance is that there is a place for both commercial fishing and recreational sea angling, what should worry us all is the use of the modern massive fish catching machines owned by major corporations who only have a responsibility to the share holders and the balance sheet, and have a loud voice in parliament as we all know that city financiers run this country to a large extent , not the public.

 

Over the years local commercial fishermen and recreational anglers have harvested local stocks and it has worked, but we are now seeing powerfull boats travelling huge distances to take advantage of local stocks, completely depleting them and then starting the engines and moving on to start elsewhere.

 

Why are the french over here trawling in pairs....cos they already screwed up there own waters doing it...why are the spanish dropping hundreds of miles of drift nets in the north atlantic and killing everything they come into contact with...because they have already killed there own local fisheries. The days where hundreds of cobbles left whitby and bridlington harbour every day have long gone. Some cobbles with commercal fishermen, some loaded with charter anglers...and everyone caught fish(personally all I ever did was be sea sick for 4 hours).

 

The other item highlighted in that report is the increase in efficiency of the sub 10m boats. In my opinion these boats are the modern equivalent of the coble. At the time the reglations were introduced they did not pose an appreciable threat to fish stocks . It does seem lke the official attitude is changing regarding these vessels.A comment was made earlier in the post that in the old days a fishing boat wheel house was half filled by a decca navigator and the rest was taken up by a fish finder. These days an angler can fit both off these in a sandwich box. This leaves more space for inrceased fishing capacity, new modern diesels mean more power and efficiency (what happened to stealng the 2 cylinder lister/petter out of a dumper truck?) This increase in efficiency was highlighted in the report and means these craft have been recognised as having a bigger impact on fish stocks. I am sure we will see these boats being subjected to regulations or even the size limit being moved ...9.8m limit would be good

 

Both commercials and recreational sea anglers can (and will have to ) exist, but it really is time the government woke up to the fact that the current economics dont add up in terms of investment v returns , and its time the balance of representation was changed to be more representational of the returns for the treasury.

 

The industries I mentioned all collapsed without government support, there are others i could add to the list, but they have all found alternative employment for those affected. The days when being georaphically isolated and reliance on one specific industry are long gone, the same technology that allows us to discuss this subject here also allow any geographical area to be economically viable with the right investment in technology. I live here in the NE and from been one of the major ship building areas of the world we seem to have become a major call centre. If the government withdrew all financial support from the uk fishing industry the affected areas would soon be targeted for investment by the self same finacial institutions who had lost out by the local collapse of their cash cow industry.

 

Tight lines

Dave

 

 

Hi Dave, First of all got to admit I am so relieved John spoke up with all that detail on the decommissioning stuff; its a nightmare and even he, who has been through the process does not claim to understand it all..... "Complicated" does not do it justice

 

I am pretty sure that the actual phrase "boom and bust economy" was used and the recommendation was to try and stop this being the case, which would have benifits for all of us in that the commercials would have a regular sustainable income and the RSA'S would have a stock of fish to go for...everyone gains!

IMHO only a politicain could come up with this one. "Boom and bust" is perfectly normal for a lot of species, esp the pelagic ones. A goverment promising "a regular sustainable income and the RSA'S would have a stock of fish to go for...everyone gains!" for those kind of stocks is promising that they can make the sun rise twice a day.

 

IMHO those stocks will come and go and fishermen need the flexibiltity to flow with that.

 

Are you daring to suggest that the net benifits report could be wrong...after all it was produced by experts and holds a foreword by my local MP (NO dont blame me for that...I was the one person who voted against him in this constituency)

 

As I understand it, the net benefits report was produced by a bunch of goverment appointed "stratergists" who consulted fishermens organisations, environmental bodies and tesco.

 

Its hard to make out what advice they took from where and what weight they put on it. Bottom line for me is that the people writing the report were political and never ever going to suggest anything that could cause the goverment problems. Plenty of fishermen believe the CFP is beyond fixing but that was never an option for instance.

 

My personal stance is that there is a place for both commercial fishing and recreational sea angling, what should worry us all is the use of the modern massive fish catching machines owned by major corporations who only have a responsibility to the share holders and the balance sheet, and have a loud voice in parliament as we all know that city financiers run this country to a large extent , not the public.

This is not really true IME. The "massive fish catching machines" I presume you refer to are the big pelagic trawlers/pursers owned mostly by skippers (though they are likely to front it with a company like a lot of people now have to do) in the NE of Scotland and Shetland. Far from becoming remote, these skippers have poured money into their local communities in new business ventures. Not a single one that i know of has sold up and sold his local area out to some remote corporation. You should visit Shetland sometime

 

Not sure where you get the idea that they have a loud voice in London from though?

 

Over the years local commercial fishermen and recreational anglers have harvested local stocks and it has worked, but we are now seeing powerfull boats travelling huge distances to take advantage of local stocks, completely depleting them and then starting the engines and moving on to start elsewhere.

 

Why are the french over here trawling in pairs....cos they already screwed up there own waters doing it...why are the spanish dropping hundreds of miles of drift nets in the north atlantic and killing everything they come into contact with...because they have already killed there own local fisheries. The days where hundreds of cobbles left whitby and bridlington harbour every day have long gone. Some cobbles with commercal fishermen, some loaded with charter anglers...and everyone caught fish(personally all I ever did was be sea sick for 4 hours).

 

Boats have travelled a long way to fish for hundreds of years ( I'd bet fishermen got to America long b4 Columbus ) .

 

No idea why the French are "over here" , if they are, but its not right to assume that the Spainish are trashing our waters because they have fished out their own. The spainish have always been long distance fishermen. Just as "we" were kicked out of Iceland and Faroe (a good thing IMHO), they were driven from the Grand Banks. While our distance fleet had the luck to lose its grounds just as the North sea oil boom needed converted trawlers, they got the EU to "negotiate " third world countries into allowing the displaced spainish distant water fleet to help them out

 

Right now Spainish financed netters are causing mayhem on our continental shelf edge, but thats out of casting range so who cares

[Leon Roskilly]

As I understand it, the net benefits report was produced by a bunch of goverment appointed "stratergists" who consulted fishermens organisations, environmental bodies and tesco.

 

I have a relative in the Civil Service who I asked about the Prime Minister's Strategy Team.

 

He told me that they are very well respected and have a reputation for 'thinking the unthinkable and making the impossible work'.

 

The consultation was open for everyone with an interest to make a contribution.

 

Anglers were not 'consulted', we made submissions to what was intended to be an investigation of the UKs commercial fishing industry. We also asked for the opportunity to talk to them directly, which we did.

 

Background document to the consultation are at

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fish.../background.asp

 

Written Responses from Stakeholders that could be bothered to get involved are at:

 

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fish...n_responses.asp

 

( The 'home' page of the investigation, with a link to the final report is at: http://www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/fisheries/index.asp )

 

 

When the Strategy Unit produces a report it is either a report 'from government', in which case it is de facto government policy, or 'to government' which is regarded as advice to government to be considered for implementation.

 

Because the findings of the report encompassed the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales, it had to be a report 'to government', with the various administrations free to respond in their own way.

 

In the case of the UK government, it was passed to DEFRA to prepare the official government response which involved further consultation via the 'Sustainable Fisheries programme

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/sfp/

 

 

(and it was decided that this would also encompass the DEFRA 'Bradley' report on inshore enforcement ( http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...eview/index.htm http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fish-env/index.htm )

 

 

The DEFRA response was in the form of the DEFRA 'Securing the Benefits' report:

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/sfp/index.htm

 

And 'Charting a new course'

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/sfp/newcourse.pdf

 

 

(We are all still waiting to hear what is to happen about inshore management and enforcement)

 

Many of the recommendations are now being rolled up into the discussions on the Marine Bill, which the government has committed to publishing next year.

 

IMHO much that was of great value was lost when Net Benefits was handed over to DEFRA for re-analysis and mangling.

 

Much of that reflected in the change from:

 

"Recommendation 2: The overarching aim of fisheries management should be ‘to maximise the return to the UK of the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment’ (9.3)."

 

To

 

"A fishing sector that is sustainable and profitable and supports strong local communities, managed effectively as an integral part of coherent policies for the marine environment."

 

 

That speaks volumes about DEFRA!!

 

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Leon Roskilly]

I was wondering.

 

Of the commercial fishermen who frequent here, how many are members of a representative organisation, and which ones.

 

And are they happy with their organisation's ability to keep up with the ball game and the representations made on their behalf to the various consultations which will affect their livelihoods and their future?

 

Tight Lines - leon

Edited November 13, 2005 by Leon Roskilly