smashing up the sea bed

[steve good]

Hi steve

 

You make a fair point about the aggregate dredging and the damage it causes, i agree with you, i would like to see the whole thing banned period, but you are wrong to think the greens are ignoring it check this site out!!

 

http://www.marinet.org.uk/mad/madbrief.html

 

One of the worrying things for me and probably you is that these bo**ock head company's are due to get new licenses granted to them to opperate the whole of this industry and expand it, in the southeastern channel it looks like we will be all fcuked mate.

 

I did not realise how much a threat this aggregate dredging realy was until now, and all the rsa,s and commercials that live between the i.o.w and dover should be very worried indeed, maybe we have found something that both the rsa and commercials can agree on and perhaps do something about it? over to you cheers...............

 

Hi stavey

 

Thats a good link you posted there.

 

The undermentioned post is written WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

Not much we can do about aggregate dredging to much money invovled and maybe the greens know it to, from their point of veiw it maybe better to trade that off so as they get what they want.

 

You cannot beat the system which is----

 

This is my view and belief---- The goverment sets the numbers for how many new houses need to be built, that needs aggregate, goverment issue licences to aggregate dredging companies after those companies submit an enviromental impact study, dredging companies pay the goverment monies, (£1,178,677,942 millions over 13 year period) the dredging companies receive more than 5 times that amount, I believe thats called a QUANGO.

 

I believe the new enviromental role that DEFRA have taken on is only to consolidate the goverments vested financial interests in the continuance of exploiting the revenue they receive from dredging operations.

 

I am of the opinion that the Marine Bill and the Vision to 2027 is the mechinisim which may achieve the above I therefore believe that these two consultations have a predetermined outcome. It is my belief that the goverment and DEFRA's position is compromised, how can they have a vested interests and bring in new laws on the enviroment.

 

I believe the goverment signed up to the Bi and Geo-diverversity Plan at the Earth Summit which means that they have undertaken to protect the marine enviroment how can they do that when they are making so much money from an eco-system destroying actitive such as is aggregate removal from the sea-bed

 

You cannot beat big BUCKS.

 

Steve

[Jaffa]

Ive seen youre posts before jaffa.

you are a bit of an apolagist for comercial fishers arent you.

 

If having my own opinion and views, based on my experience and education, makes me an "apologist" in your eyes then so be it.

 

Meanwhile, back at the points raised by your film link; care to name a single species that deepsea trawling has made extinct?

 

Chris

[wurzel]

Ive seen youre posts before jaffa.

you are a bit of an apolagist for comercial fishers arent you.

 

 

By that do you mean he is a bit sceptical of the facts against commercial fishers?

[stavey]

Hi stavey

 

Thats a good link you posted there.

 

The undermentioned post is written WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

Not much we can do about aggregate dredging to much money invovled and maybe the greens know it to, from their point of veiw it maybe better to trade that off so as they get what they want.

 

You cannot beat the system which is----

 

This is my view and belief---- The goverment sets the numbers for how many new houses need to be built, that needs aggregate, goverment issue licences to aggregate dredging companies after those companies submit an enviromental impact study, dredging companies pay the goverment monies, (£1,178,677,942 millions over 13 year period) the dredging companies receive more than 5 times that amount, I believe thats called a QUANGO.

 

I believe the new enviromental role that DEFRA have taken on is only to consolidate the goverments vested financial interests in the continuance of exploiting the revenue they receive from dredging operations.

 

I am of the opinion that the Marine Bill and the Vision to 2027 is the mechinisim which may achieve the above I therefore believe that these two consultations have a predetermined outcome. It is my belief that the goverment and DEFRA's position is compromised, how can they have a vested interests and bring in new laws on the enviroment.

 

I believe the goverment signed up to the Bi and Geo-diverversity Plan at the Earth Summit which means that they have undertaken to protect the marine enviroment how can they do that when they are making so much money from an eco-system destroying actitive such as is aggregate removal from the sea-bed

 

You cannot beat big BUCKS.

 

Steve

 

 

Hi steve

 

All believable mate, so not much can be done perhaps to stop the the continued destruction by this aggregate dredging? perhaps mother nature will bite back? i mean a lot of these new houses that this aggregate may be intended for are being built on flood plains etc, with the rising sea levels it may just come and claim it back, trouble is those fat cat bosses of these aggregate company's would have made there fortunes by then and they realy could not give a fig what ever happens after, hey ho cheers...........

[Jaffa]

If having my own opinion and views, based on my experience and education, makes me an "apologist" in your eyes then so be it.

 

Meanwhile, back at the points raised by your film link; care to name a single species that deepsea trawling has made extinct?

 

Chris

 

 

Not one?

[barry luxton]

Not one?

 

Hi Jaffa, long time no speak, i hope i'm not on your ignore list. To the point, what's your take on some of these 'exotic' species that the deepsea trawlers are landing, where they are classed as grandad and grandmar fish. I have seen the tele programmes when you look at them i would not fancy buying or eating them, some cases the fish might be up to seventy, eighty years old. It is definatly the opposite of recruitment fish. Cheers.

Edited April 21, 2007 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

Hi Jaffa, long time no speak, i hope i'm not on your ignore list. To the point, what's your take on some of these 'exotic' species that the deepsea trawlers are landing, where they are classed as grandad and grandmar fish. I have seen the tele programmes when you look at them i would not fancy buying or eating them, some cases the fish might be up to seventy, eighty years old. It is definatly the opposite of recruitment fish. Cheers.

 

Hi Barry.

 

I don't have an ignore list; I do have the usual complicated and busy life most of us seem to "enjoy" now though

 

The move into the deepsea, fishing for species we know little about, is bad news IMHO. On the one hand these species will be widely spread so its going to take time to do serious damage but on the other hand they appear to be slow growing and the deep ocean (at least as i've been taught) works at a "slower" pace, then the current free for all looks dangerous.

 

Where I fall out with the, IMO, green alarmists is the failure to stick to evidence and truth and their cheap political crap. IMHO their lies are currently carrying way too much weight with politicians and it leads to bad choices being made by those in power.

 

The green groups, and i include SACN and BASS in this, seem to ignore the wider implications of what they seek.

 

IME the biggest driver for UK boats to head deepsea was the crazy haddock (MO) quotas.

 

Biggest cockup by the goverment : giving away Rockall and a huge area of Uk waters, with barely a mention in the papers, so its now hammered by any international (register in panama, crew from cheapest location, pay a decent skipepr, land into Spain, process and ship to "concerned of kent" or whitby so they have no guilt and accuse everyone else )

 

Its a funny old world

 

Chris

Edited April 21, 2007 by Jaffa