An Alliance Between Anglers And Commercials?

[Toerag]

John and Michele:

P.S. Does anyone know if there is a forum like this one for commercial fishermen?

I've looked but can't find one. Unfortunately the majority of Commercial boys tend to be a bit lacking in the reading and writing department, let alone working a computer! We're lucky to have OMOTS, Wurzel & Binatone on here.

In my opinion, the best thing for the whole situation would be to have less fishermen fishing, so each can earn a reasonable wage without hammering the stocks. Reduce the amount of trawling, as this is the prime cause of bycatch, and increase size limits & mesh sizes on static gear to allow fish to spawn. If size limits & mesh sizes are increased gradually so that the fishermen can get the full use out of their nets then there won't be a problem. The only reason a fisherman will try to catch more fish is to increase his profit - if fishing was 'communised' and our fishermen were paid regardless of catch we would also get rid of a cause of overfishing.

[stavey]

Hi michele, my niece shares the same name but she has the extra l in hers so next time i see her i will tell her she can help to save the rain forest by cutting an l out of her name

 

Now where do i start? commercials on this forum, well i only know of two that are active on here at the mo, binatone and wurzel, old man of the sea im not sure was" but now retired? i think there have been the odd one apart from these that poped in ocasionally but not hung around, there opinion seems that there is still enough fish stocks for them to survive and others and there is no pending problems so leave things alone and the sea will allways provide? understandable up to a point i guess but it is kind of burying your head some what. They do acknowledge that many of there colleagues have gone bust or sold up, but this seems there reasoning, there may be fewer fish but there is fewer commercials now to catch them, also by hanging and not doing nothing they may cash in on the beanfeast when stocks recover.

As far as i know there is no commercial forum? (not what i know of anyway) so the only input from them comes from these guys.

 

My main intention of posting this thread was that it would be interesting to see what sea anglers thought of the idea? yes this an anglers forum but by reading and posting on here you soon begin to realise that the only common denominator is the words "sea and "angler i never new and realised what such a diverse bunch of individuals we realy are, like you say some have there feet in both camps and some do it for sport others do it for food and some both etc, etc, and like i have said in the past michele most other people ie, the general public that dont fish think commercial fishermen and sea anglers are the same thing.

 

For the record michele i have fished for forty of my forty five years and i can honestly say i have never sold one fish from the sea that i have caught and never would, i also now return every thing, and fish for the sport only, i have enjoyed my glut of cod during the late sixties and the seventies and eaten well but now i feel it is time to maybe help in some ways to put something back, the situation is dire no one can deny that commercial or other wise, and if threads like this can make people stop and pause a little to think yeah that might work" and that would help" then it as achieved something.

[JB]

Hi Jaffa,

I am not the sort of person who goes off half cocked by seeing something I don’t like (or understand) just once, and then saying it must be banned. On the other hand, I don’t believe all the scientists tell us either. Scientists generally come to the conclusion the politicians want them to, especially when politicians provide their funding. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

 

I came across the industrial sandeel trawlers on most of our offshore fishing trips during the last six summers. And I looked at them and their fishery through the eyes of a practical commercial fisherman.

 

Water temperature may have been a large contributory factor to the decline of the sandeel stocks. But to spend the last forty years knocking seven bells of sh*t out of a fishery that never should have been exploited in the first place must be an even more of a contributory factor.

 

One of the reasons I wrote the sandeel article was to make people aware of what was happening in the central North Sea. One of the main problems is that we draw our conclusions from what we see and what we read about. And apart from an occasional article in the Fishing News, most anglers know little or nothing about sandeels. (As @Autumn@ said recently.)

 

The RSPB was kicking up a stink about industrial sandeel fishing, but they were naturally only concerned about sea birds and the sandeel fishing near to land, in places like the Wee Bankie.

 

When speaking to a representative of the RSPB, he mentioned that, although he was very concerned about the sea birds not getting enough sandeels to eat, he thought that, “surely there were so few cod left in the North Sea that they would be able to find enough sandeels to sustain them?” When I said that there were probably more cod in the North Sea than there were seabirds that depended on sandeels on and around it, he seemed surprised. To be honest, I don’t think he believed me. He was a scientist, but in my opinion he was also a victim of the propaganda that says there is no cod left in the North Sea. OK, there are nowhere near as many as there once were but there are still a lot.

 

You said Before I do get back my immediate thoughts are that that 1k tonnes looks ott for that boat, and its not enough to just guess that theres 10 % bycatch (to me, when I of think any fishery involving tightly shaoling species; by catch tends to be very low. ) Have you any evidence to back your ideas up?

 

Yes, a thousand tons does seem a lot to carry in such a ship as the one in the photograph I posted. But I think you will find it is not over the top at all. To elaborate: I was fishing wrecks at the Southernmost Rough about three years ago, among a lot of sandeel trawlers of similar size and type to the one in my photographs. The Navy turned up, had a look at my boat, and asked what we were doing. Then, to my surprise (as at that time the Navy were not in the habit of bothering anyone other than the British fishing fleet), they steamed to each sandeel trawler in the vicinity. They did not board any of the boats, but proceeded to ask them questions about their target species; when they had sailed from Denmark; and how much fish they had on board. All the answers were very similar. Target species? Sandeels. Sailed from Denmark? About three days previously. Catch on board? Varied amounts, from 700 to 900 tons per vessel. They were all still trawling, and none of them were anywhere near as low in the water as the one in the picture that I posted. So my estimation may even be on the low side. Over the past six years I have seen hundreds of vessels that size and larger, sailing for home, loaded to full capacity, just like the one in the second photograph.

 

Judging by what I have read, there has not been a great deal of research work done on the by-catch of the Danish industrial sandeel fishing. I have read that the Danes have admitted to somewhere between 7% and 10%, but that is only from samples. And few samples were being taken. Apparently, the Danish fisheries department had not got the manpower to regularly check the by-catch, so they left it up to the fish processors to report it. But the processing factories were mostly under the ownership of the sandeel fishermen. We can only draw our own conclusions about the real by-catch figures.

 

Most of my reading on this subject has been material found on the Internet and articles from the Fishing News. I have not done in-depth research, so there may be a lot of statistics and number-crunching figures available that I have not come across yet. I’m sure someone will be able to produce other versions of what I have said. But statistics are mostly numbers on paper, and fishing happens at sea. The two things are worlds apart.

 

Tightly shoaling species caught with a purse seine or similar method generally do not have a high by-catch rate. You target the species with your sonar then make your set. I am told that a good skipper with modern electronics can reasonably accurately estimate the size of the catch from the sonar before the net is dried up.

 

When I was purse seining for herring in British Columbia, we caught plenty of salmon, dogfish, cod and other species. But, as a proportion of our target species, they were probably not a very high percentage.

 

I come from many generations of fishermen. The last three generations, including myself, have had quite a bit to do with trawling. In fact, my family may also be partly responsible for the way trawling has developed on the Yorkshire coast. So I have a reasonable idea of what I am talking about. Trawling for a tightly shoaling species is a very different process to purse seining for them. It is more of a gathering method, and unlike the purse seine that relies on large shoals, it can gather up lots of small shoals and the surrounding populations of other species of fish. So even when fish are plentiful, trawling is likely to have a higher by-catch than purse seining.

 

I was steaming home one night across the inner edge of the Dogger Bank and came across a group of about a dozen Danish sandeel trawlers. With my trawling experience, I thought it would be ok to keep my course, passing quarter of a mile clear of his stern, and well clear of his transducer cable. We would probably mark his net on the sounder, as I presumed his net would be on or close to the bottom. However, the skipper called me up on the VHF and asked me to stop my boat, which (of course) I did. He told me the top of his net was right on the surface, which we indeed saw as we waited for the net to pass. Having made contact with him, we talked for a while. He was interested in what we were doing out there and vice versa. He told me he was fishing his net from the surface to the bottom. We were in 18 fathoms (108 feet) of water. I did not ask him how wide his net was, but on the many occasions when I have seen them hauling their nets, they look to be at least 500 feet on the headline. The fishing circle of their nets must be enormous!

 

I asked him how long they tow for, and he replied that they have transducers and sensors on the net that tell how much fish is in it, so they only haul when there is something worth hauling for. He told me that when fishing was scarce, they would tow for 18 hours or more. At approximately four knots, that’s covering a hell of a lot of ground! With my experience of trawling I think I can safely say that when fishing is good, they will have a low by-catch - possibly 7%. But when the fishing is poor, towing such a large net, with such small-mesh cod ends, for so long, they must have a very high by-catch.

 

I hope I’ve answered your questions. I look forward to more. However, like yourself, I’m going to be very busy for a day or two…

 

John Brennan

[Jaffa]

Might be some time b4 i can spend time on this but you have me thinking and wondering.

 

As to what an RSPB scientist thinks; there are some passionate, knowledgable people in that organisation, and a lot who are career muppets that know the party line just like any other corporate body. Cuts across goverment organisations, and increasingly. imh, too many "environmental" groups

 

I'd be really interested in any links you have to the Danish enforcement regime and bycatch. If its not links then would love to hear more of what you have seen/ heard.

 

Another question (although this is cheeky since i have not responed to the points you have made); Give me a reason why a fleet, that cannot on paper catch its quota, would land "black"-sandeel. Whats in it for the boats and the processors?. Also, given the recent clampdown; which has seen the fishery depts of a few Europeon countries get busy, why, if i remember correctly (and im sure Leon will dive in if i have'nt) was the sandeel fishery not amongst those that Denmark was found to be in trouble for?

 

Glad to see you posting here.

[wurzel]

I ve been watching this thread with interest,

welcome John Brennon and his partner Michele, I've known John since the time I spent at Whitby, a good egg as far as I'm concerned, at least we won't waste time while @Autumn@ tries to work out who they are.

I will add my tuppence worth when I get more time.

[Guest jay_con]

Always good to see new members wurzel especially polite ones who dont try to have a dig everytime they mention your name. Ive had a couple of pm's with Michele and have enjoyed them. I have to say she is one of the politest members of this forum.

[Guest jay_con]

Jaffa,

 

I get the feeling you are about to quote me. If you wish to I saved you the problem of looking for what I said. Its on this page. Remember I said I was only guessing and we agreed the assumption I had made was an understandable one in the current climate.

 

This is what I said "It was only a suggestion that the figures may be wrong I didnt say its definite as I dont really know. But it certainly isnt impossible. Given the huge amount of unrecorded fish that is now coming to light a lot of the stats must be of the mark by a rather significant amount."

 

And this was your reply " @spring@, Fair enough, it was only a suggestion, and given all thats been in the news lately I guess its no surprise that you suspect the same problems have to be everywhere.

 

FWIW I have little faith in a lot of the whitefish stats either, but the Sandeel fishery is a very different thing. I looked up how many fishmeal plants there are in Denmark, and it was a grand total of 4. Seems like an easy task for the Danish Inspectors to control.

Remember as well that this fishery has been under intense scrutiny for years as many commercials blame them for "everything" thats happened.

 

Stavey, the Uk is a big importer of fishmeal but its not a major fishery for us; theres a seasonal fishery for Blue Whiting, and a few small, localised, sandeel fisheries, but thats about it as far as I know. On a Europeon and world level its a huge issue and extremely complicated; start a thread and lets hope theres an expert lurking out there!"

[stavey]

by autumn, Stavey, the Uk is a big importer of fishmeal but its not a major fishery for us; theres a seasonal fishery for Blue Whiting, and a few small, localised, sandeel fisheries, but thats about it as far as I know. On a Europeon and world level its a huge issue and extremely complicated; start a thread and lets hope theres an expert lurking out there!"

 

Autumn i am sure you are capable of starting your own threads, i am having enough problems trying to keep this one on the subject of which it was intended for as usual on here.

 

I suppose i could join in and hunt around the net feaverishly looking for contridictory and controversial evidence like, if only our fishermen and their fathers and their farthers farthers, realised what they were doing by emptying the north sea of herring literally, they have deprived the nation of todays sea sport anglers the ultimate of big angling species, the bluefin tuna, maybe some of these herring fishermen of the the pre and post war days were related to wurzel/binatone/old man of the sea/ and even are new poster john brennan, but that would be another thread and has probably been done and no doubt jaffa's arguement would have probably been something to do with some parasite invaded the tuna's brain and it thought it was an astronaut and swam off to the moon.

Anyway that was then and has happened cant turn the clock back now can we.

 

What we can do though is to educate people that come in to the sport juniors and old timers etc, is to view sea fish a little differently than what those herring fisherman and some individuals that still think the same today.

 

I have said i still want our commercials to provide a bit of fish for my local chippy but not at extreme costs to my much loved hobby and charter skippers should promote catch and release on all species where they can, shore angling is not as big an issue but i do encourage catch and release at my club comps of which i dont fish but steward, we can all do are bit, and of course if we couuld get together and pull in a similar direction we would all get a lot more done.

 

 

So genlemen can we kind of stick to the thread and maybe discuss what we can do for each other to maybe encourage the idea of an alliance ie, campaigning together instead of apart on some issues of mutual benefits maybe even getting full control of our 12 mile limit with no foriegn vessles allowed etc, after all autumn and co, its not just our own inshore waters that scoop up all the undersized codling....

[Jaffa]

Sorry for my part in taking the thread off topic (pretty normal for AN IME and one of the reasons that its maybe such a good forum though?)

 

But:

 

"and no doubt jaffa's arguement would have probably been something to do with some parasite invaded the tuna's brain and it thought it was an astronaut and swam off to the moon."

 

I reckon there are plenty of other ways to make the point without resorting to these kind of insults though.

 

I, like many folks, (esp commercial fishermen and charter skippers) struggle to get the time to even read the posts, let alone make decent replies.

 

Cyas all.

 

John, would love to hear more.

 

btw Stavey. nah nevermind . All the best.

 

Chris

[Guest jay_con]

Stavey you and others keep harping on about this twelve mile limit. I think its very unlikely in the current climate that you will get anything back from Europe but lets say you do. I have heared nothing of what you want to do with the water once its ours?? Have you got a magic wand to put lots of fish in it and make everything rosie without upsetting the commercial fishermen?