so much for the E U bans

[Guest binatone]

That deepens on what you want to believe.

A research vessel (on behalf of defra) goes out to area of sea and catches nothing (or very little) and says there are no fish so we need to put our commercial fishermen on strict quota till the fish become sustainable again.

Meanwhile Commercial fisherman goes out to same are and catches bugger all, remembers fish have tails so moves to where his experience tells him that there are loads of said fish. Catches some of them and is happy that his skills have worked, only to be told there is very little quota for him to use because there is very little fish left.

Asks defra how they know this? Simple says defra, we have spent large amount of money looking for and researching said fish. Found some, but not many, made estimation (from our findings) sent them away to our technical department who came up with some lovely graphs and figures that our estimations had made possible. These same employees of defra (still in there offices) came up with exact figures to the scientists estimations and these figures we are told to believe.

Meanwhile back at sea fisherman is told by defra that regardless to what his years of experience is telling him and the fish on his decks, there are no fish left.

Now the sand ell fishery has been different, fishermen given quota by said Danish scientist who happens to have, let’s say a keen interest on Danish fishery says “there’s your quota lads, get out and catch said fish, there’s no rush as you have six months to catch it”. Twelve months latter boats still have not managed to catch said quota?

Danish fishery scientist then thinks, do you think that we may have underestimated the amount of sand Elle there is in the North Sea? “Yes bring the boats home before we have disaster on our hands” plus the fact that some nasty sounds where coming from Brussels in regards to” you’ve got away with this for years, now’s time to sort your fishery out we have loads of money set aside for decommissioning for you”..

Four months later, same scientists with still same said interests in fishery say “ok lads everything is honky dory now, get your selves back to sea and let’s get this show back on the road”.

[seaside]

That deepens on what you want to believe.

A research vessel (on behalf of defra) goes out to area of sea and catches nothing (or very little) and says there are no fish so we need to put our commercial fishermen on strict quota till the fish become sustainable again.

Meanwhile Commercial fisherman goes out to same are and catches bugger all, remembers fish have tails so moves to where his experience tells him that there are loads of said fish. Catches some of them and is happy that his skills have worked, only to be told there is very little quota for him to use because there is very little fish left.

Asks defra how they know this? Simple says defra, we have spent large amount of money looking for and researching said fish. Found some, but not many, made estimation (from our findings) sent them away to our technical department who came up with some lovely graphs and figures that our estimations had made possible. These same employees of defra (still in there offices) came up with exact figures to the scientists estimations and these figures we are told to believe.

Meanwhile back at sea fisherman is told by defra that regardless to what his years of experience is telling him and the fish on his decks, there are no fish left.

Now the sand ell fishery has been different, fishermen given quota by said Danish scientist who happens to have, let’s say a keen interest on Danish fishery says “there’s your quota lads, get out and catch said fish, there’s no rush as you have six months to catch it”. Twelve months latter boats still have not managed to catch said quota?

Danish fishery scientist then thinks, do you think that we may have underestimated the amount of sand Elle there is in the North Sea? “Yes bring the boats home before we have disaster on our hands” plus the fact that some nasty sounds where coming from Brussels in regards to” you’ve got away with this for years, now’s time to sort your fishery out we have loads of money set aside for decommissioning for you”..

Four months later, same scientists with still same said interests in fishery say “ok lads everything is honky dory now, get your selves back to sea and let’s get this show back on the road”.

 

Now if I understand that lot correctly :

 

DEFRA research vessels don't know how to catch fish.

DEFRA technical people can't come up with worthwhile data because of that.

UK scientists are useless, or perhaps biased against commercial interests

 

Danish scientists are biased towards commercial interests.

Danish commercial fishermen are willing to continue to persue obviously depleted stocks.

Danish commercial fishermen have been doing that for years.

Danish scientists are biased towards commercial interests.

 

UK commercial fishermen, well they certainly know fish can swim !!

[Guest binatone]

Now if I understand that lot correctly :

 

DEFRA research vessels don't know how to catch fish.

DEFRA technical people can't come up with worthwhile data because of that.

UK scientists are useless, or perhaps biased against commercial interests

 

Danish scientists are biased towards commercial interests.

Danish commercial fishermen are willing to continue to persue obviously depleted stocks.

Danish commercial fishermen have been doing that for years.

Danish scientists are biased towards commercial interests.

 

UK commercial fishermen, well they certainly know fish can swim !!

That’s spot on seaside.

But you did not pick up on the point about British commercial fishermen certainly knowing how to catch fish but you did fined the smiley button.

And used it in the attempt to make out that you know better.

Top of the class for you my friend.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Binatone

 

I have read your post with interest over several months and have come to the conclusion that you are a clever old seadog who avoids answering post which state the obvious and try to confuse issues with waffling politics where issues and figures are difficult to prove.

 

From your last post I believe you are somewhat grudgingly agreeing that the sand eel fisheries are being exploited to a dangerous level.

 

Despite the rhetoric I believe there is common ground and the interest of both sides would be better served if we stood together rather than fight our own corners.

 

There was an interesting news item on the BBC news tonight reference scallop fisheries of Lyme Bay, the destruction of the sea bed was clearly demonstrated and a proposal was put forward for ten percent of the fishery to be set aside to allow the natural eco-system to continue without disturbance.

 

What are your views on this type of conservation and do you think it could be applied to other fisheries such as sand eels???

[Jaffa]

From quotes on all sides of the fence that collapse is in progress, it is possible that other factors are assisting in this collapse but the food chain being removed is a major contributor. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

 

Hi Ken,

 

The sandeels are not the bottom of the food chain, and no one is fishing the north sea zooplankton and phytoplankton.

 

Hi Binatone,

 

Im sure you were as shocked as anyone, that knows anything about fishing, when the Danes failed to get half their quota. Floored me anyway

 

Since last year they have introduced real time monitoring of the fishery (only 20 years behind the Icelanders ), details here:

 

http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/meetings/sgmos...ppendix-rev.pdf

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Ken,

 

The sandeels are not the bottom of the food chain, and no one is fishing the north sea zooplankton and phytoplankton

 

Sand eels are the bottom end as far as cod, mackeral, pollack and many other species are concerned, this also includes many sea birds.

 

I am fully aware that plankton in its many forms feed smaller fish and so on, but as you so rightly pointed out no one as yet fishes for plankton.

 

To me that point is just side stepping the issue of whether sand eels are in need of greater conservation.

[Jaffa]

Sand eels are the bottom end as far as cod, mackeral, pollack and many other species are concerned, this also includes many sea birds.

 

I am fully aware that plankton in its many forms feed smaller fish and so on, but as you so rightly pointed out no one as yet fishes for plankton.

 

To me that point is just side stepping the issue of whether sand eels are in need of greater conservation.

 

The plankton also feeds the larval stages of cod, mackeral, pollack and many others species Im not try to side step anything.

 

Wheres your evidence that the sandeels "are in need of greater conservation" ?

 

Ken, I've heard the anti sandeel fishery stuff for a couple of decades (mostly from UK commercials) but have yet to see any evidence to back up their claims.

[ColinW]

Ken, I've heard the anti sandeel fishery stuff for a couple of decades (mostly from UK commercials) but have yet to see any evidence to back up their claims.

 

Why would anyone need "evidence" that taking hundreds of thousands of tons of "fish material" out of what is basically a closed ecosystem is going to damage it. Just how is this material supposed to replace itself? If a farmer takes the same crop off a field year on year then that crop stops growing. He might not know why, it may be just some trace element that that crop needs that another crop doesn't. Surely even the most rose tinted glasses wearing commercial fishermen must realise by now that the sea is not the infinite, bountiful resource we all once believed it to be. It cannot make any sense to fish out 60-70% of the entire population of any species of fish, year on year, but that is what happens and to any rational person it is a recipe for disaster.

[Huge_Vitae]

So if I am reading this correctly, because the estimated 'new' imput into the eel stocks is 324,000,000 individuals, that has increased the stock level to over 300,000,000 individuals and therefore the fishery is 'sustainable' and can be reopened.

 

Estimating the weight of an average sandeel at (say) an ounce. and that 1 ounce = 3.12500 × 10(to the power of -5) short ton, then by my maths (bearing in mind I only got a spirit level in maths at school) the total new imput into the North Sea of sandeels is about 9,200 tonnes.

 

Anybody can see that this is not going to work out, Unless the stock is allowed to mature, reproduce, mature and reproduce. Calculate the amount of fish which are mature and have spawned and then allow a proportion of that to be taken

[ColinW]

So if I am reading this correctly, because the estimated 'new' imput into the eel stocks is 324,000,000 individuals, that has increased the stock level to over 300,000,000 individuals and therefore the fishery is 'sustainable' and can be reopened.

 

 

I think the figure is 324,000 million. God only knows how they arrive at this. The EU have a committee called the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) whose purpose seems to be to take ICES advice, water it down and then ignore all the parts that upset their fishermen. It was them that came up with this figure, not the scientists at ICES and it is based on data provided by the Danes (so that will be accurate won't it!) Strange how the TAC is set at the amount the Danes last managed to catch.