Scottish Lawnmowers

[Guest challenge]

Thanks for the pointer. Enjoyed it and learned a couple of things. Good tV.

 

Be much more interesting if you actually made a point though might be even better if you refrained from personal attacks in other forum areas from the one where the subject is being discussed

 

Define "sustainable" if you can please?

Hi jaffa,

Have just read through this thread and read your question on “sustainable fisheries” and there definition.

The following is DEFRA, s official explanation of the word “sustainable “and what they mean by “sustainable”

I quote.

“When we say that we are aiming to achieve “sustainable” fisheries, we mean that we intend to manage fisheries to get the best long-term benefits from the resource, while ensuring that activities are carried out in a way that does not breach environmental limits. We want everybody to make decisions and investments that take account of the long-term future of the fisheries resource.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

The following is DEFRA, s official explanation of the word “sustainable “and what they mean by “sustainable”

I quote.

“When we say that we are aiming to achieve “sustainable” fisheries, we mean that we intend to manage fisheries to get the best long-term benefits from the resource, while ensuring that activities are carried out in a way that does not breach environmental limits. We want everybody to make decisions and investments that take account of the long-term future of the fisheries resource.

Regards.

 

Have a look at the link Challenge this is what defra and also the minister missed the other week, in particular Shaw in the house of commons spoke about the average size of bass in shore being 40mm or less.

 

http://www.sacn.org.uk/Opinion/Bigger_Bass_Better_days.html

Edited December 3, 2007 by barry luxton

[Jaffa]

Hi jaffa,

Have just read through this thread and read your question on “sustainable fisheries” and there definition.

The following is DEFRA, s official explanation of the word “sustainable “and what they mean by “sustainable”

I quote.

“When we say that we are aiming to achieve “sustainable” fisheries, we mean that we intend to manage fisheries to get the best long-term benefits from the resource, while ensuring that activities are carried out in a way that does not breach environmental limits. We want everybody to make decisions and investments that take account of the long-term future of the fisheries resource.

Regards.

 

Cheers for that Challenge; its not something i'd seen. I've read it and reread it and still have not a clue what it actually means

 

They intend to manage fisheries to get the best long term benefits for who exactly? the government? green ngo's? anglers? .

 

What the hell are "environmental limits"? have you any idea; if not has anyone?

 

They want "everybody to have a say in how fisheries are run, regardless of their actual involvement with them?! That will get us better fish stocks?!

 

This stuff is insane imho, and still does not help me to understand what is meant by "sustainable " and what it actually means.

 

Chris

[Jaffa]

To me, 'sustainable' means you can put in the same amount of effort every year and still catch the same amount because the breeding stock is producing enough fish to compensate for the amount you take out of the system. If the breeding stock is producing more than you take out then stocks increase, if it produces less then stocks decrease.

In reality a mark or area gets discovered, fished out in 5 years, then another mark is discovered, fished out in 5 years and so on. Catches remain constant(ish) so the statisticians think everything is OK, and the fishermen don't like to talk about it or the statisticians will realise that the original 'population' was fished out, and put quotas on.

Eventually the marks will run out and that'll be the end of it all.

 

Hi Toerag, thats a definition I used to believe in but there are big problems with it.

 

I think most people accept, and the plankton surveys back this up, that conditions around the UK are changing (normal change/a result of fishing/ climate, etc etc; take your fav theory and argue loudly-take your pick) which means the fish populations will also change. It gets hard to see how you can assume some nice model works, and like you suggest, there can be all sorts of things going on that make it a nonsense.

 

I can't see how your definition works.: The idea that you can put the same effort in every year and expect similar results, even if you take fishermen out of the equation as something that changes things, makes no sense.

[H.A.]

So, your 'commercially biased' view is ...

 

none of these arguments hold any water.

Ignore all scientific evidence and observations or at least use it to make excuses.

Carry on as normal; use the improved efficient technology.

Make money while you can.

Devil take the hindmost.

 

Well, at least climate change is having little effect on the benthic damage done inshore and in deeper water by beamers, eh?

Sure you don't want some pictures?

 

[Jaffa]

So, your 'commercially biased' view is ...

 

none of these arguments hold any water.

Ignore all scientific evidence and observations or at least use it to make excuses.

Carry on as normal; use the improved efficient technology.

Make money while you can.

Devil take the hindmost.

 

Well, at least climate change is having little effect on the benthic damage done inshore and in deeper water by beamers, eh?

Sure you don't want some pictures?

 

 

My "commercially biased view" ? Your entitled to your opinion HA, and your right in so much that i have had some experience of commercial fisheries and that has helped form my viewpoint. The biased bit could be read two ways though From my viewpoint, it seems to me that most of the posters that have knowledge of commercial fishing are a lot less damning than those that don't.

 

Your wee list has me totally lost. What are you trying to say, or is it the usual nonsense?

 

If you want to talk about particular situations ,like damge by beamers in particular areas then a conversation is possible . If , as it seems to me, you merely want to trot out a load of green cliches about the evil of commercial fishing then go ahead and continue doing more for the comercials "cause" than all the RSA reps put together ! (just MO )

 

Chris

[Guest challenge]

Cheers for that Challenge; its not something i'd seen. I've read it and reread it and still have not a clue what it actually means

 

They intend to manage fisheries to get the best long term benefits for who exactly? the government? green ngo's? anglers? .

 

What the hell are "environmental limits"? have you any idea; if not has anyone?

 

They want "everybody to have a say in how fisheries are run, regardless of their actual involvement with them?! That will get us better fish stocks?!

 

This stuff is insane imho, and still does not help me to understand what is meant by "sustainable " and what it actually means.

 

Chris

Hi Jaffa,

Environmental limits?

Try this, again I quote DEFRA.

“There is already much action being taken throughout the fisheries supply chain to reduce the environmental impact of the fisheries sector. This extends from developing new gear that is more selective to reducing the impacts of aquaculture. We need to continue this work, with a particular focus on reducing unwanted catch and there fore discards, but we also need to define environmental limits, make sure we are operating within them, and develop a way of comparing different environmental costs and benefits. we will in general, press for measures to reduce the environmental impact of fisheries to be taken at EU level to avoid unilateral measures that adversely affect the long-term competitiveness of our industry”.

 

I don’t think that they have exactly define what environmental limits are yet Jaffa, strange thing that, when they are implementing them (whatever they are) in there stature and proposals for delivering “a long term vision for sustainable fisheries”

 

They (DEFRA) would like to here our views on turning there visions into reality. They say “they look forward to working with us to develop there draft plan into a shared contract to deliver sustainable fisheries”

Regards

Edited December 7, 2007 by challenge

[barry luxton]

Hi Jaffa,

Environmental limits?

Try this, again I quote DEFRA.

“There is already much action being taken throughout the fisheries supply chain to reduce the environmental impact of the fisheries sector. This extends from developing new gear that is more selective to reducing the impacts of aquaculture. We need to continue this work, with a particular focus on reducing unwanted catch and there fore discards, but we also need to define environmental limits, make sure we are operating within them, and develop a way of comparing different environmental costs and benefits. we will in general, press for measures to reduce the environmental impact of fisheries to be taken at EU level to avoid unilateral measures that adversely affect the long-term competitiveness of our industry”.

Interesting battle going on at the mo in Lyme bay, scallop dredging against the pink sea fan, the dredging is winning.

[Guest challenge]

Interesting battle going on at the mo in Lyme bay, scallop dredging against the pink sea fan, the dredging is winning.

Hi Barry,

How are the scallops doing in this environmental v commercial game of chess? Or are they just the pawns in the game?

regards.

[barry luxton]

Hi Barry,

How are the scallops doing in this environmental v commercial game of chess? Or are they just the pawns in the game?

regards.