BBC's Trawlermen

[Guest challenge]

leon.

Why did you highlight this?

Despite this, landings did

not show consistent trends downwards in comparison with

2003, suggesting that landings per unit of effort increased

somewhat and that fishing for several species therefore

became slightly more efficient in 2004.

 

And not this?

In general, fishers do not like to

catch and discard fish that are of no economic value, cause

extra work on deck, and cannot contribute to future growth

of the stock because they are dead.

 

I appreciate your post Leon but if you would have highlighted the latter then it would have answered the main question that is being debated that is do commercial fishermen give a dam.

Regards John.

[Leon Roskilly]

leon.

Why did you highlight this?

Despite this, landings did

not show consistent trends downwards in comparison with

2003, suggesting that landings per unit of effort increased

somewhat and that fishing for several species therefore

became slightly more efficient in 2004.

 

And not this?

In general, fishers do not like to

catch and discard fish that are of no economic value, cause

extra work on deck, and cannot contribute to future growth

of the stock because they are dead.

 

I appreciate your post Leon but if you would have highlighted the latter then it would have answered the main question that is being debated that is do commercial fishermen give a dam.

Regards John.

 

 

It drives home the point I've made in previous discussions that whereas there are those from the catching sector that point to the decreasing number of vessels that has not lead to any recovery of fish stocks; because of technological creep, the mortality caused by the declining fleet is not reducing.

 

Much the same as the fact that whereas 100 men with axes can sustainably live off a forest, give 10 of them chainsaws and soon the other 90 are out of a job, the forest is gone, and the men with chainsaws are looking for new grounds to ..... er, new forests to decimate.

 

Like all industries, as technology increases, there is less people that need to be employed to maintain productivity and in the case of the fishing industry less boats as well as less men, as the fishing capability of each boat is also increased.

 

Add in declining stocks, and you are soon into a downward spiral as leaders demand that scientific advice be 'balanced' with the need to maintain livelihoods and communities.

 

Unfortunately nature knows nothing of politics and livelihoods, and it is the consequences of ignoring her needs that takes us towards eventual disaster.

 

 

Fortunately that message now seems to be getting through as the EU moves towards management on a Maximum Sustaianable Yield (MSY) basis, but warn that at least temporarily their will need to be furthe retrenchment of the fleet.

 

The several times expressed sentiment that 'there is no sense in conserving fish stocks if at the end of that you have no industry to exploit the recovered stocks' is being replaced by 'it is possible to rebuild a fishing industry from scratch, but when the stocks have been lost, everything is lost'.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Guest challenge]

A bit like the cod recovery plan?

The governments set impossible targets for the cod to recover? The fishermen say we haven’t got the capacity (targeting cod) anymore to catch what you say the cod must recover in the next 3 years. How the hell do you expect cod to recover so fast?

Government says that is what we have been told that is to be needed for a full cod recovery plan. So if they are not recovering to our predicted levels then we will have to cut your (commercial fishermen’s) quota yet again.

Following year because commercial fishermen are not targeting cod because of the small amount they are allowed to catch (most have turned to the prawns) the government says things are even worse than we feared. Cod are not being caught therefore they cannot be there? We will have to cut the quotas yet again.

In the mean time Leon the fishermen brandishing there chainsaws cannot see the wood for the trees.

Regards John.

[corydoras]

Trouble is, fish move around and crops don't.

I don't really see that that is relevant. If say 25% of the North Sea was made a no go area for say 5 years on a rotating basis this I am sure would allow stocks to develop.

 

After all we have 'Bass Nursery Areas' and nobody has told the bass have they?

[Peter M]

i am no expert like many on this forum but from what i saw on the programme on later with Kate Humble showed just what can be achieved by leavig areas "fallow". In one case it rejuvenated a near dead Scallop fishery which was good for the industry and the enviorment.

[seaside]

i am no expert like many on this forum but from what i saw on the programme on later with Kate Humble showed just what can be achieved by leavig areas "fallow". In one case it rejuvenated a near dead Scallop fishery which was good for the industry and the enviorment.

 

Peter - you don't have to be an expert to recognise that leaving an area 'fallow', or that not fishing spawning or nursery grounds or not using techniques which destroy environments or habitats, will rejuvenate or preserve fisheries, but, you do need to be an expert in something (I don't know what) to understand why it isn't done.

[JB]

If say 25% of the North Sea was made a no go area for say 5 years on a rotating basis this I am sure would allow stocks to develop.

 

In principle, that sounds a good idea. But the North Sea is a vast place and, apart from the activity around the shores, very little other than industrial fishing happens in the middle of it. Therefore, quite a lot of it is already laid fallow, so to speak. I steam for days at a time and never see a commercial fishing vessel, only industrial (sandeel) fishing boats. There may be 60-odd boats prawning from Scottish ports but very few work the central and southern North Sea.

 

Anyone who says that the efficiency of commercial fishing boats has increased in proportion to the decrease in the number of vessels is totally out of touch and is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. There is a marked reduction in effort on cod fishing without any apparent increase in cod stocks. In my humble opinion, by condemning British commercial fishermen we are all barking up the wrong tree.

 

JB

[Steve Coppolo]

I don't really see that that is relevant. If say 25% of the North Sea was made a no go area for say 5 years on a rotating basis this I am sure would allow stocks to develop.

 

There are hundreds of no go areas in the North sea already, each one a mile in diameter.

 

They are called gas and oil rigs.

[Guest challenge]

There are hundreds of no go areas in the North sea already, each one a mile in diameter.

 

They are called gas and oil rigs.

Very good point Steve.

When ever we pass through one of the fields or installations they ask us for a mile clearance.

I know we are allowed up to 500 meters but they do ask for a mile.

Now that’s a mile round every installation in the North Sea? There you go Leon, work that one out for us, find out how many installations there are in the north sea then work out what a mile clearance at 360 degrees would be. Times that by the number of installations and see if it would fit into the wash.

[big_cod]

There are hundreds of no go areas in the North sea already, each one a mile in diameter.

 

They are called gas and oil rigs.

 

Oil platforms act as a good nursery for fish to haven and breed as thay have an exclusion zone around where commercial fishing is prohibited , but on the othere hand the pipes that run from theses platforms often to the main pumping platform and then on to sulum voe or into peterhead or even norway are also a big attracter to fish as the oil running the pipes is at high temperature thus attracting much marine life around them and also at times and can also attract vasts amount of fish which are easily targeted .