Scottish Lawnmowers

[Jaffa]

Think it was the tory , John Gummer, that wondered why we have so many government departments working on managing commercial fisheries when their sum worth to the UK was less than that of the lawnmower industry.

 

That was a while ago. Now we have a SNP government in Scotland, the papers full of all sorts of England vs Scotland stuff that i guess sells papers.

 

Given that a lot of our important fish stocks are mainly fished for by Scots boats, could a split be a good thing for fisheries??

[H.A.]

Given that a lot of our important fish stocks are mainly fished for by Scots boats, could a split be a good thing for fisheries??

 

I'd suggest that's probably a question for 'Fishing News' rather than an angling forum.

I asssume you are referring to the remaining UK fleet?

 

You appear not to be aware of the few hundred thousand RSAs who also fish for the UK's fish stocks, but unlike most commercial skippers we don't fish for tonnes of undersized or non-quota fish and then ditch them, dead, overboard.

 

I can't help but think you might be better off making lawnmowers, Jaffa?

 

[Leon Roskilly]

John Gummer ex Fisheries Minister quoted in ‘Fishing News’ November 2001.

 

 

As Minister, the tune of ‘livelihoods for fishermen’ dominated the spin---but now it’s an entirely different tune.

 

 

“I was never able to press for the necessary conservation measures at National and EU level, due to the nations ‘emotional attachment’ to fishermen. The Industry has too much political clout .The lawn mowing industry employs more people but does not have four ministries, England, N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.seaangler.com/Seaangler_MCS2.html (Link no longer works)

 

In 1998, John Gummer, former UK Fisheries Minister, described the process of fisheries management as doing nothing for conservation, "if you are a Fisheries Minister you sit around a table arguing about fishermen, not about fish.

 

You are there to represent fishermen, you are there to ensure that if there are ten fish left you get your share and , if possible, a bit more.

 

The arguments are not about conservation". And therein lies the problem - political expediency.

 

 

http://www.foundation.org.uk/pdf17/fst17_5.pdf (Link no longer works)

 

In Britain, we have a Fisheries Minister for the UK, one in Scotland, another in Wales and yet another in Northern Ireland – all these fisheries ministers for an industry that is smaller than the British Lawnmower Industry.

 

Yet we do not have a single Lawnmower Minister, let alone four.

 

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...xt/10205-13.htm

 

The overwhelming evidence we took showed that the common fisheries policy has been a failure, is a failure and will continue to be a failure.

 

The Fisheries Minister's job, quite frankly, to quote a previous Minister of Agriculture, Mr John Gummer, is, "to ensure that if there are only ten fish left in the sea, you get your share and if possible a few more".

 

That is not a policy at all.

 

If it is a policy, it is a policy of despair.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4110921.stm

 

Mr Gummer is now a backbench Conservative MP, and chairs the board of the Marine Stewardship Council.

 

He told the BBC News website: "I think the government is being misled again. It should have supported the tough European line.

 

"Whenever there's an effective suggestion for improving the situation, there's a huge tendency for a pull-back which comes from the fishing industry.

 

"The problem with the EU's common fisheries policy is not that it's common - it has to be that - but that the ministers represent the fishermen, not the fish.

 

"And the fishermen whose interests they're talking about are today's, not tomorrow's.

 

"All over the world we've underestimated the speed at which fish stocks have become depleted, and that's the trap Mr Bradshaw has fallen into."

Edited November 1, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[barry luxton]

What an excellent read the parlaiment 10205 is, why is it ignored by all and nothing changes, or is it all bullshine. If so i take it back and now say the rsa require a fishing minister just like the commercial sector has. That would be fair. As there are a lot more rsa's, they could do with half a dozen, then there might be some changes, i.e. more and bigger fish for all.

 

The value of the stock would increase massivly to offset all of the extra ministers expences.

Edited November 1, 2007 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

What an excellent read the parlaiment 10205 is, why is it ignored by all and nothing changes, or is it all bullshine. If so i take it back and now say the rsa require a fishing minister just like the commercial sector has. That would be fair. As there are a lot more rsa's, they could do with half a dozen, then there might be some changes, i.e. more and bigger fish for all.

 

The value of the stock would increase massivly to offset all of the extra ministers expences.

 

Yes, thanks for that Leon,as usual was indeed an interesting if depressing read.

 

Barry, Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington described the situation in Europe as;

 

http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=27980

 

"

Europe is just a basket case because of the institutional structure, the EEU and the need for consensus. They seemed to have moved nowhere beyond the protection of jobs and as a result they have many overexploited fish stocks

 

I guess its not just the jobs of the fishermen themselves that count in this explanation? We currently have the "industry", with all its different self interests, Civil servants of various departments, lobby groups of various hues, and uncle tom cobbly and all lobbying away like mad.

 

What im curious about is if it is more or less likely we get a direct connection between the health of fish stocks and the decision makers. On the one hand it seems more likely that could happen if fisheries were of real importance to those making the decisons (so perhaps Scottish control good) but on the other hand will they have more or less clout for fisheries within the madness of the CFP, given most of Scotlands population stay in Glasgow/Edinburgh and are likely to be as remote from fisheries issues as London?

 

 

Chris

[Jaffa]

I'd suggest that's probably a question for 'Fishing News' rather than an angling forum.

I asssume you are referring to the remaining UK fleet?

 

You appear not to be aware of the few hundred thousand RSAs who also fish for the UK's fish stocks, but unlike most commercial skippers we don't fish for tonnes of undersized or non-quota fish and then ditch them, dead, overboard.

 

I can't help but think you might be better off making lawnmowers, Jaffa?

 

 

Commercial or RSA: both obviously need healthy fish stocks

 

I suspect a lot of charter skippers read FN btw I know it has given more serious coverage to concerns over fish stocks than all the angling rags put together

 

Healthy debate requires that you make some kind of point though?

 

Chris

[barry luxton]

Yes, thanks for that Leon,as usual was indeed an interesting if depressing read.

 

Barry, Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington described the situation in Europe as;

 

http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=27980

 

"

 

I guess its not just the jobs of the fishermen themselves that count in this explanation? We currently have the "industry", with all its different self interests, Civil servants of various departments, lobby groups of various hues, and uncle tom cobbly and all lobbying away like mad.

 

What im curious about is if it is more or less likely we get a direct connection between the health of fish stocks and the decision makers. On the one hand it seems more likely that could happen if fisheries were of real importance to those making the decisons (so perhaps Scottish control good) but on the other hand will they have more or less clout for fisheries within the madness of the CFP, given most of Scotlands population stay in Glasgow/Edinburgh and are likely to be as remote from fisheries issues as London?

Chris

 

To be fair this Ray Hilborn was basing his argument on the collapse of the fishery on 2048. He also mentions iceland as a good role model example, we know that they have problems at present. Uncle tom cobley, yes the major problem with all the lobbyists is the fish, no one is sticking up for them cept the rsa who are asking for more and bigger fish, is that classed as trying to protect the stock.

As for the scottish, with the idea of going it alone SNP they could be correct however if and when they require help in the future say from the english, would they get it? However they might rule that no one can fish in their local waters but have a historic right to fish in others, thats a form of protection'isam and will be seen as such, nimby's? Guernsey they did try to keep Jersey and others out and lost.

Edited November 2, 2007 by barry luxton

[ColinW]

I've said before that commercial fishermen have NO interest in protecting fish stocks, quite the opposite. If there are a tenth the number of fish in the sea, they get ten times as much money for what they land. Their worst case scenario would be a sea full of big fish that anglers could catch and give away to family and friends.

[Jaffa]

To be fair this Ray Hilborn was basing his argument on the collapse of the fishery on 2048. He also mentions iceland as a good role model example, we know that they have problems at present. Uncle tom cobley, yes the major problem with all the lobbyists is the fish, no one is sticking up for them cept the rsa who are asking for more and bigger fish, is that classed as trying to protect the stock.

As for the scottish, with the idea of going it alone SNP they could be correct however if and when they require help in the future say from the english, would they get it? However they might rule that no one can fish in their local waters but have a historic right to fish in others, thats a form of protection'isam and will be seen as such, nimby's? Guernsey they did try to keep Jersey and others out and lost.

 

To be fair thats not at all how i read it. He, and others, have shown that the "all fish gone by 2048 scenerio " is rubbish.

 

So Iceland have problems atm. My take would be that having problems is the normal state for anyone trying to manage fisheries: the interesting bit is surely about the ability of management to react to those changes. Given the importance of fisheries to Iceland then i'd imagine its going to be quicker than us. As i read it the Faroese have been quite willing to change their whole fisheries regime within months because the fishstocks count so much to their economy. It seems to be a 20 to 30 yr wait for change here, and even then it will get warped by all the interest groups (and i include RSA in that).

 

Its one thing to say that RSA lobby "sticks up for more and better fish" but what does that actually mean in real terms?

 

Could it mean an obsession with a preferred species and damn the ones that just happen to not be of interest to anglers (mainly SE anglers from what i see )

 

Could it mean a "who cares" attitude to just where the displacement of effort goes when a particular RSA group (and none of them stand for all RSA , or even a significant minority) influences government?

 

I'd be interested to know where the Scots pair trawlers that used to fish bass down your way are fishing now? On "endangered" cod stocks in the northern north sea maybe?

[Jaffa]

I've said before that commercial fishermen have NO interest in protecting fish stocks, quite the opposite. If there are a tenth the number of fish in the sea, they get ten times as much money for what they land. Their worst case scenario would be a sea full of big fish that anglers could catch and give away to family and friends.

 

You may have said it before Colin but it does not become any truer the more you say it?

 

It does not make any sense whatsoever, to me anyway, that someone is willing to invest money into a boat that requires years of good profits to pay for it and they do not give a fig about fish stocks?!

 

Its hard to imagine any skipper having nightmares, or even giving a passing thought, to YOUR "worse case "scenario" about anglers.