Petition to No 10 Downing Street

[Leon Roskilly]

How do the sea temperatures in the Gulf of Maine compare with those in the North Sea?

 

Do they have the warmth of the Gulf Stream?

 

 

[barry luxton]

 

 

Hi Leon. some one has nicked the north sea on your map?

[barry luxton]

Also in addition to my previous please see extract from another forum on here:

 

"Using computer models of cod growth, recruitment and fishing, the study went on to

examine in the cool and warm periods what size of cod stock was possible under

different fishing pressures. It found that the North Sea spawning cod stock, if cod

had been fished during 1988-2001 so that it produced the maximum sustainable

yield, could have been approximately 260,000 tonnes, which would have sustainably

supported a fishery during that period of 180,000 tonnes each year.

This result is very clear and worth repeating. Even given the warming in the North

Sea that happened between 1988-2001, and all the observed changes in the food-chain,

if we had fished cod at a lower level the ecosystem could possibly have sustained a spawning stock of 260,000 tonnes. In actual fact over this period the

spawning stock size decreased from 150,000 tonnes to less than 50,000 tonnes.

If we had fished cod at a lower level, the catches would have been higher. This at

first does not seem to make sense. But taking a small portion of a large stock gives

us a bigger catch than taking a large portion of a small stock. If North Sea cod had

been fished at a lower level, it could have supported a sustainable annual catch of

180,000 tonnes.

So, even with the climate changes that have occurred taken into account, the North

Sea cod population is lower than it could be, and this is a result of fishing pressure. If

the fishing pressure was reduced, the North Sea, even under current climatic

conditions, could support a larger, sustainable cod fishery and a healthy cod stock.

Using a single-species modeling approach, the North Sea, even given the

climatic conditions we have experienced since the 1980s, could presently

be supporting a sustainable cod spawning biomass of about 260,000

tonnes, which in turn could be supporting a sustainable fishery of 180,000

tonnes each year. The reason that we do not have this size of stock is

due to the high fishing pressure we have subjected the stock to. Cod is

not moving north; rather we are fishing out the southerly components of

the stock. There still remain large areas of potential habitat for North Sea

cod at suitable temperatures. We can not blame climate for the decline

of North Sea cod.

QUOTEIn the short-term, cod can recover - whichever climate change scenario was

used. If the fishery does not misreport catch, the management regime can

recover the stock to 150,000 tonnes within 6 years. If the fishery includes

misreporting, the recovery takes 15 years.#

 

Kind regards

 

Henry

 

Henry, no disrespects mate but you still have not responded to answer my many questions you have only indicated someones suggestion of one item, cod stocks and takes. Don't know about wurzel but in the last few years, have the takes been reached as recommended or have the trawlers fell short of the targets? Or has the take exceeded what has been laid down. Was the cod taken by trawling or was there another reason for their dissaperance or migration? In one period the take is for 100,000 tons, was this caught or have they migrated. Is that what you are refering to and the possible dammage and or effect this had on the existing stock? Perhaps this is where you could address your petition. The eu again as they set the legalization for the north sea, apparently. Perhaps we ought to petition to leave the eu and then get the uk to set a hundred mile ntz limmit for everyone.

 

regards barry

[JB]

Hi Henry,

Are these ‘no take zones for commercials’ intended for the benefit of anglers or for the benefit of fish stocks? Every fish taken from the sea and kept is one that cannot be caught again, nor can it reproduce.

 

JB

[Jaffa]

As long angling is no cause for overfishing there is no need to limit or stop that activity. I am sure the local communities and businesses dependant on angling would strongly agree this. Why close them down for no reason. But for some reson you are the odd exemption to all logic in this respect. I simply cannot understand your opinions as an angler dependant charter boat skipper. It doesn't makes sense only if... but I'll not guesing in public on that one.

 

 

The Petition calls for

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Create areas of the seas around Britain where all commercial fishing is banned for ten years to allow stocks to recover.

 

Given your above statement, do you agree with this petition FF ?

[JB]

As long angling is no cause for overfishing there is no need to limit or stop that activity. I am sure the local communities and businesses dependant on angling would strongly agree this. Why close them down for no reason. But for some reson you are the odd exemption to all logic in this respect. I simply cannot understand your opinions as an angler dependant charter boat skipper. It doesn't makes sense only if... but I'll not guesing in public on that one.

‘No take zones’, prohibiting ALL fishing, appear to have worked well in other countries. If we try them here, using the same apparently successful approach would make sense. A ‘no take zone’ should be just that – no taking of fish by commercial or recreational fishermen. They should totally be for the benefit of fish stocks. Don’t you see the logic in that? Yes, I do depend on anglers for my living, and ‘no take zones’ may cause me problems. However, I am using common sense in this post, not personal (or professional) bias. The whole point of ‘no take zones’ is to improve the fishing outside of the ‘no take zone’ area.

 

JB

[Trubshaw]

As long angling is no cause for overfishing there is no need to limit or stop that activity. I am sure the local communities and businesses dependant on angling would strongly agree this. Why close them down for no reason. But for some reson you are the odd exemption to all logic in this respect. I simply cannot understand your opinions as an angler dependant charter boat skipper. It doesn't makes sense only if... but I'll not guesing in public on that one.

 

 

The purpose behind the petition was to get people to talk and think about things. Every fish taken from the sea and not returned in good condition will affect reproduction rates, some more than others.

 

So taking into account all aspects:

 

1. I know the EU rules our seas. We are a member of it howver and can lobby as a country if enough of us lobby our own government.

 

2. Whether it is global warming mainly or overfishing mainly that affects stocks, matters not in this context. Over fishing does do affect stocks. It simply cannot be argued that it does not.

 

3. Cutting back over-fishing allows for stock re-growth, sooner, stopping global warming will eventually but will take far longer, simply because global warming will take longer to reverse.

 

4. Stock re-growth allows for the survival of our commercial fin fishers. Do they not want this?

 

5. Not doing anything other than to find excuses not to cut back on commercial fishing by creating sea parks, will result in NO FISH. It is plain for all to see.

 

6. Why Haddock recover quicker than Cod do I don't know. I would hazard a guess at growth rates, feeding patterns, etc along with pollution, global warming and everything else.

 

7. The problem is that trawl nets are not species specific. Fish get caught with the Haddock. If they are not legal or allowed to be landed they get thrown back. What good does that do? They are dead by then.

 

8. Just a statistic. There are supposedly 1m RSAs in the country. If each fished an average of 10 days per year and caught an average of say 5lbs of cod per trip they would catch 50m lbs of fish. Or in terms of metric tonnes 20,000 tonnes of cod per annum. As nothing like that number are going to do anything like that, the question as to be asked how many tonnes of Cod does the commercial side catch, many many times the numbers of RSAs.

 

9. Given that the spawning stock is down to 50,000 tonnes, if the RSAs were getting anywhere near 5% of that figure, yes, stop boat road and line fishing for cod. If they don't why not let them carry on. Look at how many peoples' livelyhoods depend upon the RSA. Sadly and unfortunately far more than commercial fin fishers.

 

10. However, more than is being done at present must be done, as commercials, as has been proved on endless occasions scientifically, anecdotally and by reason of sheer commons sense, have run out time.

 

11. If they want a future, they have got to manage the stocks in a sustainable fashion. What is happening at the moment is simply not that.

[barry luxton]

So I cannot say yes ro no to a take zone, I would have to know where and why and how big before answering that one - and I certainly like assesed first before answering anything: What difference would it make if angling continues within that zone?

 

Hi Fishings fine,

 

The above is questions that Henry has sidelined. I have asked prevoiusly why his petition is only for commercial, where to put the ntz, what happens after ten years if there is no improvement and the commercial boats, commercial activity and the general public would have suffered for what?

 

cheers barry

[Trubshaw]

Hi Fishings fine,

 

The above is questions that Henry has sidelined. I have asked prevoiusly why his petition is only for commercial, where to put the ntz, what happens after ten years if there is no improvement and the commercial boats, commercial activity and the general public would have suffered for what?

 

cheers barry

 

 

I apologise for sidelining. You are right I have not answered your question. I will endeavour to do so.

 

1. Given the reductions in days that commercial fisherman, by whom I mean fin fishers, not shell fishers, are allowed to fish, which was put forward as a means of reducing catches, what has happened to ones that went out of business?

 

2. When interest rates went to 16% in 1990 what happened to all the businessmen and their businesses that went bust? (Inc me) They had to go out and get started again.

 

3. The policy would as a matter of course as we all know be kept under review.

 

4. Setting up set aside areas allows food fish to grow as much as the top predators and allows the balance to be restored. Part of the problem is industrial fishing for fish to turn into fish meal. The industrials would be banned as well. The RSAs really don't I think make that much difference to stock levels. If they did, then they would have to be stopped as well.

 

5. It is not a question of fairness. Life is unfair. See item 2 1990. What is more important is that fish stocks are saved and managed better than they are being at the moment.

 

6. I do not believe for one moment that if this petition were to succeed in some way, that in ten years there will be no commercial fisherman left. If we don't do something now there won't be for certain. Look at what happened in Newfoundland!!!

 

7. Where do you put the NTZs? You're an expert in the locations from what you have said, please come up with some constructive suggestions.

 

8. Current sand-eel fisheries locations spring to mind for one.

 

Kind regards

 

Henry

Edited November 25, 2006 by Trubshaw

[Jaffa]

4. Setting up set aside areas allows food fish to grow as much as the top predators and allows the balance to be restored. Part of the problem is industrial fishing for fish to turn into fish meal. The industrials would be banned as well. The RSAs really don't I think make that much difference to stock levels. If they did, then they would have to be stopped as well.

 

Whats your definition of "industrial" ?

 

You reckon RSA's don't make a difference to which stocks? all of them?!