fat cats

[Leon Roskilly]

wurzel:

 

Leon you still have not showed me any proof.

What 'proof' would you believe Wurzel?

 

Tight Lines - leon

[wurzel]

A lack of fish, not the lack of right to catch fish.

[Guest jay_con]

An empty sea perhaps?

[Leon Roskilly]

@SPRING@:

An empty sea perhaps?

And that's the problem.

 

When there's (say) 500,000 tonne of spawning biomass available, fishermen can sustainably catch what they need.

 

When there's only (say) 10,000 tonne available, the stock is in deep trouble, but still fishermen can catch what they need.

 

Scientific advice? Unreliable.

 

Fewer Fish? There's always been times of plenty and times of shortage.

 

Overfishing a problem? No, there are environmental changes taking place, fishermen just need to adjust, that's all.

 

And as scientists warn of the approaching danger, fishermen cannot afford to believe them. They have to believe that there will be fish tomorrow, or give up their way of life.

 

And environmentalists believe the scientists, and so the gap widens.

 

In every case that I've ever read about, all over the world, apart from a few individuals, fishermen have been united in claiming that there wasn't a problem. 'Plenty of fish'

 

Right up until there was (to all intents and purposes) no more fish.

 

 

Tight Lines - leon

[spanner]

wurzel,

 

A lack of fish is what we have. Yes there are fish, but there are not the stocks there should be.

 

 

Do you accept that some catches might be up because they are getting better at doing it rather than there actually being more fish?

 

Or are the scientists just wrong becuase they they dont know what they are doing?......i.e. they don't know to operate a trawl properly to make a valid sample, or they sample in the wrong place or at the wrong time?

 

The problem with blaming the scientists is that they are sampling the environment the same way they have over many years...and that shows a decline. Its a random methodology, just like bug counting in a square meter of a field and applying statistical analysis. I dont think the fish have wised up and started playing hide-and-seek with the scientists, just to fool them, but I do know that commercial methods have become way more efficient and effective over the years. If you know where to look you'll find them ..... until theres none left.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you accept that some catches might be up beacuse they are new targets?

 

Just because monkish landings are up does that mean the stocks are actually increasing? Or are they just being targeted more as they are now valuable where in years gone by they couldn't be given away?

 

 

If catches are up in tons is that really a good thing, does it really mean a healthy stock? Apart from the example of the grand banks when catches went up just before they totally collapsed, I don't think you can answer that based on the tons of catch without considering the size of what is being caught. If it is all much smaller fish than what used to be caught then how can that be a sign of a healthy stock, the whole balance of the stock is out of whack.

 

So how about the haddock, is that a nice healthy improving stock? Do you agree that they are getting smaller? If you do then that is not a healthy stock, it is not being harvested in an ecologically sustainable way.

 

 

Or is it all the fault of global warming?

[big_cod]

worzel in the 1960ss at dungerness beach they use to catch any amount of 20lb cod seen the photos now that is well south as you would say ,here in the 1960ss you could walk on cod yes we still catch good numbers of fish we tend to count fish at times when not long ago it was nothing to catch 60stone of cod on a 10hour trip you still get big days but not as regular and it seems its only the certain skippers what keep coming up with the goods you have to work your balls these days.

[wurzel]

Big Cod, There were tons of cod here during the 60's but not many during the 40's or 50's,

60 stone in 10 hours x several angling boats a day, sounds like you had your share.

 

Spanner, Haddock have always been abused, rounders and huge amounts of discards, but they still bounce back, I agree some stocks might be improved with so called sustainable metheods, but they will still survive with out it or eles they would have gone years ago.

 

And yes I do think climate has a big part to play.

 

The UK fleet is now at a size were it is no threat to any stock, but still you all still baying for more blood, and will not be happy untill there are none left.

[Guest jay_con]

wurzel:

Big Cod, There were tons of cod here during the 60's but not many during the 40's or 50's,

 

.

Ive heared this several times now wurzil. How do you know this???. Your either 250 years old or dr who??

Seriously though - Do you really believe that todays technology would have shown a very different result???.

[Guest jay_con]

wurzel:

 

 

 

The UK fleet is now at a size were it is no threat to any stock, but still you all still baying for more blood, and will not be happy untill there are none left.

It is the catching potential of todays fleet and not the number of boats that greatly concerns us. Id be quite happy to have a lot of boats and fishermen like you around here. Im not so enthusiastic about the type of boats we currently have.

[Bob on Stronsay]

Hello Wurzel, have you ever read the book called "Cod" I know our fleet isn't the size of the Canadians when they decimated their stocks (With a bit of help from us in the past) but it would have been if the Icelanders hadn't kicked us out so they could have a sustainable fishery.

 

I like eating fish (No fish and chip shop up here so I catch my own) and I understand so do lots of other folk so we need to fish but to disregard the scientists and just fish away is so short sighted it is unbelievable.

 

What is needed is a sensible policy that is policed properly and a total ban on all bottom trawling if not a total ban on all net fishing.

 

The price of fish would go up and it would become fashionable again so more jobs would be created.

 

Bob