RSA Strategy Consultation Launched

[bobdurauntti]

The message from their work is that sustainable cod populations can be maintained in the North Sea even during the climate change expected in the 21st century, but the fish mortality needs to be lowered.'

 

The problem FF is that you are quoting from scientists, who have produced a scientific report in a scientific journal, probably based on a number of years research, therefore it has to be incorrect, probably a fraudulent misuse of their funding.

Edited December 19, 2007 by bobdurauntti

[Jaffa]

The problem FF is that you are quoting from scientists, who have produced a scientific report in a scientific journal, probably based on a number of years research, therefore it has to be incorrect, probably a fraudulent misuse of their funding.

 

Nope; findings very in line with funding, so no fraud there. Think you might have to look at that "many years" nonsense though:

[Jaffa]

Others are sure that the fleet do have an effect on them. The classical question springs to mind: Who am I to believe, the commercial fishermen or the scientists?:

 

http://www.hmapcoml.org/Files/Filer/News_R...es_Research.pdf

'There were also 1000s of cod bones present together with the warm-water species. That result was surprising because investigators knew that the increase in sea temperatures since the late 1980s to the early 1990s has reduced the survival of young cod in the North Sea. How can these two findings be reconciled? The researchers believe that the difference is due to the much lower fishing pressure in the archaeological period. The message from their work is that sustainable cod populations can be maintained in the North Sea even during the climate change expected in the 21st century, but the fish mortality needs to be lowered.'

 

Fisheries Research

“History of Marine Animal Populations and their Exploitation in Northern Europe”

Volume 87, Issues 2-3, Pages 101-262 (November 2007)

 

Hi FF,

 

Where do you get this idea that the "classical question" is between the commercials and the scientists? "Classical" (and with it all the "gravitas" that carries ) when the people suggesting its "classical" know damn all about fisheries. Classical crap for headlines, classical green cheap and easy packages for the papers. Just MO of course..

 

The only fishery scientists we hear about are the doom and gloom merchants funded by organisations like Pew. There are so many more working in fisheries that we never get to hear about imho, but tell me FF, what % of the none Pew ones does the average guy get to hear about? and how do you actually rate tjhe Pew stuff?

 

Give an honest answer and you might get an angler or two "onboard".

 

Chris

Edited December 29, 2007 by Jaffa

[H.A.]

There is no doubt about the warnings from fisheries scientists about dangerously low cod stocks in the N Sea; Irish Sea and in the NW Atlantic.

 

Localised stocks around Greenland, Iceland and Norway are relatively untouched by N American and European commercial fleets.

I don't need more convincing regarding scientific observation and analyses.

Wurzels meaningless optimism means nothing compared to hundreds of scientific studies.

 

As an angler for over 50 years on the English Channel and East Coast, I have seen inshore migratory cod stocks decimated until (as now) a 'freak' optimum breeding year gives those areas some codling (90% comprising a single spawning of immature fish now in the 0.5 - 1.5Kg class). There is no evidence in these areas (inshore) of mixed year classes of healthy stock.

Why? Old age (not mine)? Global warming? Disease? Pollution?

 

Of course not ........ just ultra-efficient destruction in the name of commercial/industrial fishing.

 

It has to stop.

 

I want to see all trawling and netting prohibited as soon as possible around the UK for a start and in all fisheries deemed to be in danger to follow.

 

The economic and other disadvantages of such actions are small compared to what is beginning to happen right now ... non-viability of certain commercial species and species, which are not presently under threat, but soon to be targeted.

 

[steve good]

There is no doubt about the warnings from fisheries scientists about dangerously low cod stocks in the N Sea; Irish Sea and in the NW Atlantic.

 

Localised stocks around Greenland, Iceland and Norway are relatively untouched by N American and European commercial fleets.

I don't need more convincing regarding scientific observation and analyses.

Wurzels meaningless optimism means nothing compared to hundreds of scientific studies.

 

As an angler for over 50 years on the English Channel and East Coast, I have seen inshore migratory cod stocks decimated until (as now) a 'freak' optimum breeding year gives those areas some codling (90% comprising a single spawning of immature fish now in the 0.5 - 1.5Kg class). There is no evidence in these areas (inshore) of mixed year classes of healthy stock.

Why? Old age (not mine)? Global warming? Disease? Pollution?

 

Of course not ........ just ultra-efficient destruction in the name of commercial/industrial fishing.

 

It has to stop.

 

I want to see all trawling and netting prohibited as soon as possible around the UK for a start and in all fisheries deemed to be in danger to follow.

 

The economic and other disadvantages of such actions are small compared to what is beginning to happen right now ... non-viability of certain commercial species and species, which are not presently under threat, but soon to be targeted.

 

 

Hi H.A

 

You are a natural born pessimist, and cannot accept things for what they, you just condemn and blame commercials for everything without comprise. Our commercial fisheries are managed on a international basis which is diffacult because of the mixed fisheries and fishing methods.

 

It is attitudes as uncomprising as yours and others that are preventing meaningful debate which prevents anglers and commercials from taking step so as to prevent this goverment and their fisheries department DEFRA from stuffing anglers and commercials alike, the goverment and therefore DEFRA are driven by the greens and their pretenders the supermarkets and dairly newspapers and anglers and commercials are as expendable as fox hunters

 

whilst anglers and commercials fight between themsevles the goverment/greens and their pretenders are laughing at us both as their collective predetermined plans such as the marine bill and the so called vision for 2027 and angling licence and bag limits are going through there formally determination process without any meaningful opposition

 

You can openly condenm and blame commercials as much as you like whilst you are doing that anglers like commercials are being stuff totally,

 

I must say whatever the fate for anglers will be fully deserved the fact is you think that you are experts in fisheries management and you known nothing and that will be your undoing combind with your lack of compremise and dislike for the commercials

 

steve

[Jaffa]

This is not as much about getting an angler or two onboard as it is to address the constant denial from certain corners about the true state of fish stocks and what can and should be done about it. If we only hear from doom and gloom fishery scientists it's because they are in the majority and count the most credible names amongst fishery scientist, no matter where the funding comes from. Please bring here some names on fishery scientist and studies of your taste, who can tell that there are as many big cod out there as there ever was and that fishing for cod over the last century or two had little to no effect on what I believe is a poor state of cod stocks.

 

Anything from every fishery scientist i have ever read says that many stocks, including many that are important to us anglers, are less than they once were. In some cases its due to overfishing, others are in trouble in others due to habitat destruction, etc etc. The ones making the news all seem to be coming from the former while its the latter than are quietly going extinct every day. Guess what, their are a lot of us humans on the planet now and thats going to mean change

 

Maybe thats something worth pondering for the New Year? All this hype about managing some sea species that are important to commercials, us and Supermarkets, not one of which is neither extinct or near it (hence the new expression "commercially extinct") but next to zero coverage of those going even before they get to be classified.

 

The problem with " Please bring here some names on fishery scientist and studies of your taste" is of course that its not a matter of taste at all; its about proof and a lot of the stuff that has hit our headlines has nothing to do with that.

 

Given that its only a tiny minority of scientists that are stupid enough to put themselves in the firing line, and given the stuff on the internet is not actually "the world" , I'd put up Paul Tett and his review of Scottish Algal blooms in relation to salmon farming. Brave man and his introduction is worth the read however disinterested in the subject you might be IMHO. Go read that and contrast it with the nonsense from the salmon farm protesters that came later

 

Go read Alistair McVicar's ( a top expert on Salmon lice) rebuttal of the the Pew nonsense about the British Columbia lice issue then ask yourself whats going on.

 

Just my experience FF.

 

Chris

[H.A.]

Anything from every fishery scientist i have ever read says that many stocks, including many that are important to us anglers, are less than they once were. In some cases its due to overfishing, others are in trouble in others due to habitat destruction, etc etc. The ones making the news all seem to be coming from the former while its the latter than are quietly going extinct every day. Guess what, their are a lot of us humans on the planet now and thats going to mean change.

 

Hells Bells, Jaff! Yer speaks the truth ....

 

New Year resolution, perhaps?

 

[bobdurauntti]

As usual Jaffa you have to turn to spin in order to make a point.

 

In the first instance, you obviously have a bug to bare with Pew, thats OK nothing to do with me, but I would hope that you could see beyond that, so do you think that all reports which provide a view of the current state of marine stocks in the NW Atlantic as 'sus', based on the fact that they conclude that 'commercial overfishing has played a significant role in the decline of the majority of commercial fish stocks', or is it just anything that Pew fund or release that winds you up into such a frenzy?

 

Secondly, if you quote somebody, its usual to quote what they say, not put your own emphasis or spin on it. I refer you to my post on which you commented, I said:

 

The problem FF is that you are quoting from scientists, who have produced a scientific report in a scientific journal, probably based on a number of years research, therefore it has to be incorrect, probably a fraudulent misuse of their funding.

 

Yet in your response you quote me as:

 

Nope; findings very in line with funding, so no fraud there. Think you might have to look at that "many years" nonsense though:

 

Thats a pretty damned poor effort, is that the best you can do? Your just making it up as you go along, your quite obviously in denial, but therapy can help, however, you really do need to want to overcome your issues otherwise it won't work, and it can become an expensive waste of time. :D :D

 

Bd

Edited December 31, 2007 by bobdurauntti

[Jaffa]

As usual Jaffa you have to turn to spin in order to make a point.

 

In the first instance, you obviously have a bug to bare with Pew, thats OK nothing to do with me, but I would hope that you could see beyond that, so do you think that all reports which provide a view of the current state of marine stocks in the NW Atlantic as 'sus', based on the fact that they conclude that 'commercial overfishing has played a significant role in the decline of the majority of commercial fish stocks', or is it just anything that Pew fund or release that winds you up into such a frenzy?

 

Secondly, if you quote somebody, its usual to quote what they say, not put your own emphasis or spin on it. I refer you to my post on which you commented, I said:

Yet in your response you quote me as:

Thats a pretty damned poor effort, is that the best you can do? Your just making it up as you go along, your quite obviously in denial, but therapy can help, however, you really do need to want to overcome your issues otherwise it won't work, and it can become an expensive waste of time. :D :D

 

Bd

 

"spin" ? I represent no one and am just giving my personal view based on my experience.

 

I do indeed have a problem with Pew and worry about how their huge war chest will lead to restrictions on my life, do worry about how this crazy money is turning respected science journals into tabloids, and do worry about RSA "reps" polishing their "green credentials" ready for the Charge of the Light Brigade,!

 

I'm also a bit fed up with the personal attacks that seem to follow any disagreement with the party line; clearly im the commercials pocket and don't think for myself.....

 

Perhaps you could describe the influence on the media of organisations like PEW, and reassure the average angler that its all benign point out the faults ? I have spotted the unease of Leon, when ir comes to Pew, FF and spoken up,;about time all "ordinary" anglers got to hear some of their feelings on these groups.

 

The big green moneys being thrown at MPA's atm and gawd help anyone in the way IMO.

 

No doubt theres a Pew scheme where i can address the denial issues you believe I have?

 

Btw how many marine fish have commercial fishermen managed to make extinct? My understanding is that is NIL; seems incredible in the world we have all grown up in. I look out and see only improvement in our inshore waters: fishing good here, price of fuel is so high we are never going to see the bad rockhopper days back. When i go to a mark i see more kestrels, buzzards, and even peregrines, than i ever saw as a kid. I kayak and get to sit amid dolphins, with their whistles blasting through the yak hull, yet its all doom ,gloom and an apparent need for this to be controlled.

 

How many species have become extinct due to just about every other human activity? Gets painful to think about., yet where does all this billionaire oil money end up being spent?! - To save the dozens of species about to cease because of a dam across some river in South Americs (though of course exports of those species that live there are banned to "protect" them- they effectively are a dead end now) or to turn vast acres of western seas into playgrounds while we continue to shaft every third world fishing ground by exporting our problems,

 

You talk about spin! !

Edited January 25, 2008 by Jaffa

[barry luxton]

Btw how many marine fish have commercial fishermen managed to make extinct? My understanding is that is NIL; seems incredible in the world we have all grown up in. I look out and see only improvement in our inshore waters: fishing good here, price of fuel is so high we are never going to see the bad rockhopper days back. When i go to a mark i see more kestrels, buzzards, and even peregrines, than i ever saw as a kid. I kayak and get to sit amid dolphins, with their whistles blasting through the yak hull, yet its all doom ,gloom and an apparent need for this to be controlled.

Aside from poo for a moment, i have seen this counter argument used from time to time. How about making a comment regarding fishing and the effects it has on the stocks. Does it make a difference?

ignore global warming etc and just stick to this one point. Changes in the biomass for example? Herring stocks, sandeel, etc?cod or should it be codling. Bass is next?Is there a difference?