But there are so few fishermen aren't there?

[ColinW]

As anglers we are dim. We are supposed to think that fish are spread throughout the sea like currants in a cake, so a small number of commercial fishermen can't possibly do any damage can they?

Unfortunately for us (and for the fish) this isn't true. The fish like certain places at certain times and anyone with half a brain and a log book will have a good idea where they are from year to year. In the "good old days" that didn't matter so much, because even if a skipper knew that on that date the year before he'd had a good catch, he do well to be within half a mile of the same "hotspot" out in the middle of the sea a year later. Now he can hit it within a few yards. Not just him either, ALL of them can be fishing the one spot for twenty miles where there are any fish. Whatever was down there that the fish used to like sure as hell won't be there for long. The fact that there might be hundreds of square miles with no trawlers in (as is so often pointed out) is a complete irrelevance. If there are no trawlers there, it's because there are no fish there. It in no way indicates a lack of pressure on the stocks. Even if they only fished for cod for one week a year it could be enough to damage stocks because their efforts can now be so well targeted.

 

If I was the last of a group of psychopaths who hunted league footballers, would I hunt them by randomly firing a gun off in the streets or do you think I might twig that I could get more by waiting until three o'clock on a Saturday? And once there were only two or three teams left, would they feel safer because "There's only one of him doing it now."

[JB]

As anglers we are dim. We are supposed to think that fish are spread throughout the sea like currants in a cake, so a small number of commercial fishermen can't possibly do any damage can they?

Unfortunately for us (and for the fish) this isn't true. The fish like certain places at certain times and anyone with half a brain and a log book will have a good idea where they are from year to year. In the "good old days" that didn't matter so much, because even if a skipper knew that on that date the year before he'd had a good catch, he do well to be within half a mile of the same "hotspot" out in the middle of the sea a year later. Now he can hit it within a few yards. Not just him either, ALL of them can be fishing the one spot for twenty miles where there are any fish. Whatever was down there that the fish used to like sure as hell won't be there for long. The fact that there might be hundreds of square miles with no trawlers in (as is so often pointed out) is a complete irrelevance. If there are no trawlers there, it's because there are no fish there. It in no way indicates a lack of pressure on the stocks. Even if they only fished for cod for one week a year it could be enough to damage stocks because their efforts can now be so well targeted.

Oh, how easy it is to jump to conclusions. I wish I had a pound in my pocket every time I have heard someone (who has never done the job) say that they know how to do someone’s job better than the person who has done it for a lifetime.

 

Just as a matter of interest, since 1999 I have based my whole business on fishing areas that are un-fished (or hardly ever fished) by anyone else. Just because there’s no commercial fishing there doesn’t mean there’s no fish there!

 

JB

[mr motorola]

Oh, how easy it is to jump to conclusions. I wish I had a pound in my pocket every time I have heard someone (who has never done the job) say that they know how to do someone’s job better than the person who has done it for a lifetime.

 

Just as a matter of interest, since 1999 I have based my whole business on fishing areas that are un-fished (or hardly ever fished) by anyone else. Just because there’s no commercial fishing there doesn’t mean there’s no fish there!

 

JB

Very well said that man :thumbs:

[Davy Holt]

Just as a matter of interest, since 1999 I have based my whole business on fishing areas that are un-fished (or hardly ever fished) by anyone else.

 

How do you know that ??

given that :

 

"On average an area equivalent to 48% of the North Sea is disturbed annually by beam trawling. It is concentrated in the South, reaching 54% off the English coast, 112% in the central southern North Sea (some areas are hit more than once!), 153% off the Danish coast, and a staggering 321% off the Dutch coast."

 

Just because there's no commercial fishing there doesn't mean there's no fish there!

Again how do you know there is no commercial fishing there? You could quite easily arrive just after a commercial has left the area or in an area that fishes well leave just before the commercial arrives.

[Ian Burrett]

How do you know that ??

given that :

 

"On average an area equivalent to 48% of the North Sea is disturbed annually by beam trawling. It is concentrated in the South, reaching 54% off the English coast, 112% in the central southern North Sea (some areas are hit more than once!), 153% off the Danish coast, and a staggering 321% off the Dutch coast."

Again how do you know there is no commercial fishing there? You could quite easily arrive just after a commercial has left the area or in an area that fishes well leave just before the commercial arrives.

 

I once read somewhere and I will try and dig it out that every part of the Irish sea used to be is trawled at least 6 times a year. It doesn't happen now of course because the fish aren't there any more.

 

That global warmings a bitch

[stavey]

How do you know that ??

given that :

 

"On average an area equivalent to 48% of the North Sea is disturbed annually by beam trawling. It is concentrated in the South, reaching 54% off the English coast, 112% in the central southern North Sea (some areas are hit more than once!), 153% off the Danish coast, and a staggering 321% off the Dutch coast."

Again how do you know there is no commercial fishing there? You could quite easily arrive just after a commercial has left the area or in an area that fishes well leave just before the commercial arrives.

 

Hi davy

 

I would say those figures were a little on the conservative side, especially where i am in the south they trawl the arse of the beaches down here because its so easily accessable nice sandy shallow beaches for slipper sole, coupled with the hundreds of under ten metre boys, the beach fishing is well and truly f**ked, there may not be as many fishermen today as there was in the old days but there is still plenty enough inside the 6 mile limit to keep fish stocks surpressed to a crap level and worse, cheers.............

[JB]

How do you know that ??

given that :

 

"On average an area equivalent to 48% of the North Sea is disturbed annually by beam trawling. It is concentrated in the South, reaching 54% off the English coast, 112% in the central southern North Sea (some areas are hit more than once!), 153% off the Danish coast, and a staggering 321% off the Dutch coast."

Again how do you know there is no commercial fishing there? You could quite easily arrive just after a commercial has left the area or in an area that fishes well leave just before the commercial arrives.

Hi Davy,

Clearly with anything to do with the sea you can never be 100% certain. However, it is a big part of my job to know what is going on and where, in the areas that I fish. I do this by networking with the few remaining (English speaking) commercial boats and the many standby and guard vessels. (Most of which are operated by ex-fishermen.) Nowadays, probably because of safety reasons, most of the vessels in the North Sea converse with each other and know who is where and why.

 

I come from many generations of commercial fishermen and took part in the industry for many years myself. Although I may not agree that what is continually happening to the fishing industry is right, I bear no fisherman ill will, nor do I have a prejudice against him. Judging by the help and information I have received over the years from the network of commercial fishermen I have, I believe they hold me in the same esteem. All this, plus between 2,600 and 3,300 hours of sea time each season, and logging up about 125,000 nautical miles on my GPS since 1999 (a distance comparable to at least five times around the world), probably gives me a fair idea of what is happening in the central North Sea.

 

JB

[ColinW]

Oh, how easy it is to jump to conclusions. I wish I had a pound in my pocket every time I have heard someone (who has never done the job) say that they know how to do someone’s job better than the person who has done it for a lifetime.

 

Just as a matter of interest, since 1999 I have based my whole business on fishing areas that are un-fished (or hardly ever fished) by anyone else. Just because there’s no commercial fishing there doesn’t mean there’s no fish there!

 

JB

 

I didn't say I could do the job better. I said that today's skippers can do the job FAR more efficiently than their fathers or their grandfathers could. I don't see how that isn't slagging them off in any way. It's just saying that the technology they now have at their disposal, added to the knowledge they acquire over many years, makes them far more destructive of stocks than they ever used to be. If the technology plays such an insignificant part in their results, let's see them all fish without it!

To pretend that just because there aren't many of them they cannot be affecting stocks, as is often stated here, and that the lack of cod is due to global warming, seals or whatever is a nonsense. The lack of cod is due to commercial fishing. Whether due to the direct capture, discards, trawled sea bed damage or removal of millions of tons of protein from their eco-system by industrial fishing I don't know, probably a combination of all those things, but commercial fishing and nothing else.

[JB]

I didn't say I could do the job better. I said that today's skippers can do the job FAR more efficiently than their fathers or their grandfathers could. I don't see how that isn't slagging them off in any way. It's just saying that the technology they now have at their disposal, added to the knowledge they acquire over many years, makes them far more destructive of stocks than they ever used to be. If the technology plays such an insignificant part in their results, let's see them all fish without it!

To pretend that just because there aren't many of them they cannot be affecting stocks, as is often stated here, and that the lack of cod is due to global warming, seals or whatever is a nonsense. The lack of cod is due to commercial fishing. Whether due to the direct capture, discards, trawled sea bed damage or removal of millions of tons of protein from their eco-system by industrial fishing I don't know, probably a combination of all those things, but commercial fishing and nothing else.

Hi Colin,

Apologies. My mistake in wording. What I should have said was, ‘Oh, how easy it is to jump to conclusions. I wish I had a pound in my pocket every time I have heard someone (who has never done the job) say that they have a better understanding of someone’s job than the person who has done it for a lifetime.’

 

If I were to put it more correctly, I assume you are saying that the increase in technological advancement in the British fishing industry over recent years is at least equal to the cutbacks that DEFRA and MAFF before them have made over the same period. That is a statement that I feel I would not be qualified to make at this present time. To be honest, I don’t know who is.

 

You may have read one of my previous posts on the forum, which said that after I had been to a meeting with DEFRA, I was surprised and disappointed in their lack of understanding of all who fish and how they do it. After all, they have had many years to learn something about what they are in charge of and are supposedly competent to make rules for.

 

After further investigation into this matter, I was told that there had been a big shake up within DEFRA. Many staff had been replaced, and although certain practical knowledge had been lost, a new game was in play with different rules. So all we can hope for at this time is that a greater understanding of all who fish will eventually be achieved and sensible and effective rules will be made accordingly. Hopefully fish conservation will take precedence over job conservation within DEFRA. After all, we are still talking about civil servants, albeit the new and improved variety.

 

JB

Edited March 14, 2007 by John and Michele

[nigel2]

stavey,

 

I know some body asked you the same thing befor...hundreds of under tens??? how do you arrive at that figure?? well a quick way is to call your local defra office, wheres yours? pompy? where ever, it does not matter, and ask how many under ten boats are in your area, and what type of fishing they persue, (that WILL surprise you, ) I promise you where ever you are it will not be hundreds local to you, try it, freedom of information, and all that, are you aware that out of the total allowable catch around the whole of the UK that 96% is held by 1300 licence holders over 10meters, of which up to a quarter of them are not on working boats, and are used as a comodidty to rent and trade,with any EU partner, not bad for a national resource, AND now we come to the remaining 4% of the fish left swimming as TAC, 5300 under ten boats, break this down, lets start at the bottom, the "wanabees" part timers, that play, the sharp ones that know if you own a registered fishing dingy, you can buy your petrol and say you are putting it in your outboard, and claim your duty back .....and the 2 family cars run for next to nothing!!!!!better than chancing pink deisel!! then the many boats that are just inactive, which narrows things down considerably, NOW devide that around the entire coast line of the UK where do your hundreds on your BIT of coast come from ??? please feel free to e.mail me with a phone No it will make an interesting conversation,