# Greenpeace disrupt fishing boat (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Greenpeace campaigners attempt to disrupt a cod fishing boat in the North Sea in protest at fish stocks.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Pat McCardle (Jun 12, 2005)

Continue to 'BATTER COD'. Is he having a laugh?


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

There's more Cod in the seas just now than the fishermen have seen for the last 25 years. They're having to steam up to 300nm just to get clear of them as the last thing they want to do is dump dead fish. 

Yet another greenpeace stunt. I just wish they would admit publicly that they don't want ANYONE to be allowed to catch fish simply because they're Vegitarians/Vegans. Its their hypocrasy that stuns me , they go on and on and on about pollution/etc yet all of their boats are old , have big engines , burn LOTS of diesel thus producing lots of CO2 and Sulphur-di-oxide.

I used to support them when they helped to put an end to the indiscriminate slaughter of Whales but they no longer seem to care less about Science , they only use data if it supports their narrow view and hide/dismiss any data that goes against their "percieved truth". I have had robust "discussions" with representatives of theirs over the years and they refuse to listen to anyone with real world experience or a scientific background ( I have both ).

The boat involved here didn't stop and they failed to do anything to her. They have a very bad habit of dropping anchors / heavy weights onto fishing gear which is a direct threat to the stability and safety of the fishing vessels being targetted and I believe they have overstepped the mark too many times to be left unchallenged. Peacefull protest is one thing but reckless endangerment of fishermens lives is unacceptable.

The real story about Cod is that Grey Seals eat more tonnage of Cod than the entire EU fleet is allowed to catch every year. The North Sea is warming up meaning the phytoplankton that is the basis of the food chain for Cod is moving North every year meaning the main spawning biomass is moving North. 

The EU fleet effort in whitefish has been cut by over 70% over the last 10 years , the Cod recovery plan has worked far far better and far quicker than was ever expected ( 3-5 years ahead of best estimates from 3 years ago ) and Greenpeace just don't want to admit to this.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6650059.stm

They seem to think that the International Rules of the Road don't apply to Greenpeace it seems. A fishing vessel legally engaged in trawling operations has right of way over all other vessels including sailing vessels. If these Greenpeace idiots want to jump in the sea infront of her the skipper cannot just turn away ( especially if it puts his gear near obstructions on the bottom which could endanger the safety of the ship if the net gets caught ) so they have nothing to complain about.

As I said above just another rabbid , anti-meat eating publicity stunt by people that deserve to be ignored by all.

It would have been their own fault if they'd gone into the prop and ended up as so much Sushi for the Seagulls supper !!!


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

*????????????*



Davie Tait said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6650059.stm
> 
> They seem to think that the International Rules of the Road don't apply to Greenpeace it seems. A fishing vessel legally engaged in trawling operations has right of way over all other vessels including sailing vessels. If these Greenpeace idiots want to jump in the sea infront of her the skipper cannot just turn away ( especially if it puts his gear near obstructions on the bottom which could endanger the safety of the ship if the net gets caught ) so they have nothing to complain about.
> 
> ...


(MAD) Don,t they have anything better to do, like take a long walk of a short pier wearing concrete boots (Thumb)


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

LOL, I post about boats engaged in the seal hunt in Canada and get nasty comments, but cod it's a different matter.
Greenpeace are all about the money they can raise in donations. They will lie, post out of date info and do whatever it takes to keep the money coming in from people who can't bother to research the facts for themselves.


----------



## 6639 (Apr 20, 2006)

here , here! gentlemen. Sadly it's still the misguided many who still think that they stand for a good cause. How wrong can people be?


----------



## lochluichart (Aug 24, 2005)

Hear hear to all of above.
They are now more about making money than saving the planet.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Just how exactly do you guys know all this stuff about Greenpeace? As someone who is involved in the environmental movement I have my own criticisms of them as a movement, but I have not heard any of this stuff. They are also registered as a charity in many countries where they have a presence and as such are subject to stringent auditing of their funds, and yet I have never heard any accusations in regard to misappropriation of the same. Perhaps some of those posting above might like to give us some actual evidence in regard to their accusations, and I mean actual evidence, not what some bloke in a pub told you.
CBoots


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

We've had to take action today to stop cod being caught because otherwise it will disappear from the seas and our dinner plates." 

If they are going to get Cod Fishing stopped how is it going to get on their Dinner Plates from their quotation above.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

That is my point exactly Gydnia they don't want anyone to be allowed to catch or kill anything ( be it fish , fowl or farm animals ). They have been getting worse and worse and worse in trying to shove their Vegitarian/Vegan beliefs ( to them more like a fanatical religion , they have NO INTEREST in talking or listening to those with real world experience as they are ALWAYS right in their eyes and we are all heathens who shouldn't have any say in their eyes ) down our throats.

I have had this exact attitude from Greenpeace activists over the last 10-15 years and I have seen it getting worse and worse over that time. Even the original founder of Greenpeace now condems their actions and the way they behave as unacceptable and he has left the organisation in dusgust.

I have had 2 Greenpeace idiots try to shout me down when they were claiming that 95% of all fish caught were thrown back dead as discards , i'm the wrong guy to try to argue with on this issue as I have at least done 100 Scientific Discard survey trips on commercial fishing vessels over a 9 year period and I know what the rates are ( white fish rates are 10% at worst usually around 5% until this stupid EU Commision idiots on their "green vote agenda" stop them landing the Cod that is now so plentifull which means fishermen having to dump fish and steam 300nm to get clear of Cod , Prawn discard rates vary but no more than 15% at worst around 8-10% average ).

Greenpeace do NO FISH SURVEY WORK at all. They use "data collected" by so called independant scientists ( whom have NEVER been seen aboard fishing boats or measuring fish on the fish markets ) who are picking numbers out of thin air just to justify the "Green Agenda".

They tried again today to distrupt a pair trawl team ( Carissane II FR951 and Demares PD959 ) at Flugga ( 40nm North of Shetland ) again without obeying the rules of the road and safe navigation. Yet again it is time that the Greenpeace skippers lost their command tickets and the vessels Greenpeace use should be impounded and scrapped. If they stick to just using peacefull NON-DANGEROUS protests then fine if they insist on this path where either the protestors will die being sucked into a propellor or caught on the trawl wires and drowned or they will force a vessel to take emergency avoiding action which means the net coming fast and the vessel capsizing.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

cboots said:


> Just how exactly do you guys know all this stuff about Greenpeace? As someone who is involved in the environmental movement I have my own criticisms of them as a movement, but I have not heard any of this stuff. They are also registered as a charity in many countries where they have a presence and as such are subject to stringent auditing of their funds, and yet I have never heard any accusations in regard to misappropriation of the same. Perhaps some of those posting above might like to give us some actual evidence in regard to their accusations, and I mean actual evidence, not what some bloke in a pub told you.
> CBoots


The info I post about Greenpeace is from my own direct conversatons with activists and Greenpeace's own publicity stunts. They are heading the way of the Sea Shepherd lot ( which deliberately rammed a Japanese whaler in January/February on his PORT side again against the rules of the road and safe navigation ) which would be a sad thing to see. Greenpeace did a lot of good in their early years but they have been hijacked by the radical fundamentalist Vegan/Vegitarians in my view.

If they want to be taken seriously then they should do some basic peer-reviewed Scientific surveys. They are not allowed on ANY EU Scientific vessels because of their attitudes towards the EU Marine Laboratorys. To be taken seriously they need to calm down and do some work not pick number out of thin air.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

I think that you are the one who needs to calm down and take a few deep breaths mate - David Tait re above. As regards your reply to my request for actual evidence of financial misappropriation etc, what you are giving is your own opinion, which is fine, but don't try to make out it is indisputable fact.
CBoots


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I'm not the one who is putting lives in danger , obstructing a fishing vessel undertaking her legal right to fish , breaking the International Rules for Safety at Sea by ignoring the Rules of the Road ( which clearly stipulate that a fishing vessel has right of way over all other vessels when conducting fishing operations due to a severely limited ability to change course ).

I have never seen ANY data from Greenpeace to back up any of their assertions that Cod is going to disappear ( they have refused to publish any data that could be checked by independant scientists ).

They have never ( to my knowledge and i'm sure I would have heard had this ever happened ) gone out on commercial fishing vessels to undertake any sampling of Discard rates ( which would have to include a representative sample - usually 60-120kg depending on the size of the fish - with accurate length measurements / Otolith removal for age determination / accurate estimate of total bulk before any fish had been worked - this is done by the mate of the fishing boat and you work out by close observation how many baskets ( each 32kg ) of marketable fish are selected to each basket of discarded fish - this allows you to accurately estimate the total discards - this would be for every haul on a trip and the Seas are split up into seperate areas each needing survey work done , this is why it takes a team of 8 Scientists dedicated to the job in Scotland alone to do the work ) and which involves accurate measuring of the marketable catch ( at least 90-120kg of each selection of each species - up to 7 selections with cod , 6 with haddock , etc ) or done representative market sampling with Otolith removal to ascertain the length/age data ( which I can tell you now no fisherman would ever allow them to touch his fish and if they went onto a fishmarket without the written permission of the Harbour Master they are breaking the health and safety and health and hygene laws ).

To get an accurate estimate on the state of the Fish stocks takes 4 quarterly surveys of the North Sea / West Coast / Irish Sea by 9 EU state Marine laboratories and Norway ( the EU ones are : Scotland , England , Eire , Denmark , Holland , Sweden , Germany , France and Spain ) doing 21 day bottom trawl surveys with the data all worked up to catch rates per 1hr ( all use the same trawl/door combination so the swept area of the gear is known so catch rates per Square Nautical Mile can be estimated ).

I'm afraid its a simple fact that Greenpeace have never done the survey work , nor have any interests in doing any survey work. The way Greenpeace behaves towards the hundreds of Scientists and Thousands of Fishermen is below contempt i'm afraid. If Greenpeace wants to do any good for Cod then they will need to target the idiotic politicians in Brussels that are willing to ignore the evidence that Cod has recovered and are more than willing to have the fishermen dump good fish for no other reason than political gain in aiming for the "green" vote.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

The Canadian seal hunt is a cash cow for Greenpeace. 
There are over 1 million seals in this area and the cull takes a mere fraction of them, yet the attitude is that they are an endangered animals. Most of their propaganda shows whitecoats and the implication is that the hunt is for whitecoats alone.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Greenpeace - Hmm. World Speakers on The Environment using - as Davie rightly pinted out - old diesel ships whose 'carbon footprint' (What sort of english are they teaching nowadays? Jargon? ) is way out of kilter of anything more modern. Environmentalists who pollute to save the earth?

A contradiction in terms, surely?

Jonty


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

cboots said:


> Just how exactly do you guys know all this stuff about Greenpeace? As someone who is involved in the environmental movement I have my own criticisms of them as a movement, but I have not heard any of this stuff. They are also registered as a charity in many countries where they have a presence and as such are subject to stringent auditing of their funds, and yet I have never heard any accusations in regard to misappropriation of the same. Perhaps some of those posting above might like to give us some actual evidence in regard to their accusations, and I mean actual evidence, not what some bloke in a pub told you.
> CBoots



http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm


----------



## Coastie (Aug 24, 2005)

More can be read on Greenpeace's antics here: 
http://www.shetlandmarine.com/pages/latest_news.htm


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

cboots said:


> I think that you are the one who needs to calm down and take a few deep breaths mate - David Tait re above. As regards your reply to my request for actual evidence of financial misappropriation etc, what you are giving is your own opinion, which is fine, but don't try to make out it is indisputable fact.
> CBoots


I think you will agree that so far -those who have expressed their views on this post have all agreed that Greenpeace are the ones who need to calm down .
A lot of what they have done in the past i have supported (Thumb) 
NOW, well if their own founder has left the organisation in disgust that tells me something .
Maybe it,s time a certain individual should wake up and smell the roses(Thumb)
These people are no better than the idiots who attach bombs to themselves .


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Thanks for the links - excellent reading. 

Now, Greenpeace supporters, explain this bit of hype:

_"We're in the North Sea to save the cod from extinction, and a part of the Scottish fishing fleet from collapsing," Mr Mackenzie said._

_.... and see oceans returned to the healthy ecosystems they once were."_

Has no one told these poor lads and lassies that the UK Fishing Industry is on its knees as it is? What exactly do they mean by 'part of'; when what is sailing today is indeed a 'part of' what once was?

As for 'healthy ecosystems' - perhaps The Greenpeace tree huggers need to look at what Davie Tait has suggested they look at - discard rates and take part in the survey as he suggests. Do the work, get the facts - don't stand up and scream 'Save The Shrimp', 'Liberate The Lobster' and 'Cover The Cod' without having the absolute facts to hand. 

I absolutely detest this form of bio terrorism perpetuated by educated, privileged 'activists' whose idea of work is to set sail on a publicity jaunt and get tgheir jollies by swimming in the path of a moving ship. Can they not be charged with 'reckless endangerment' by people like the SFPA or RN Fisheries Patrols as what they are doing is risking the lives of fishermen in what looks, by the news reports, to be a deliberate action.

Surely they are in breach of something under Maritime Law?

Tree huggin' liberals again. Yawn - the world is filled with 'eco warriors' who believe that their stand will save 'Mother Earth'. Grow up, for ****'s sake!

Jonty


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

*Yet another Greenpeace thread leading to civil war on SN??*

Unfortunately whenever the topic of Greenpeace crops up on this site people get carried away by their genuinely held beliefs on both side of the argument. We had a very similar discussion recently about whale hunting in the Antarctic and the antics of Greenpeace activists there.

Please desist from personal abuse or the Mods will start deleting posts and if necessary close the thread.

Thank you Jok and Coastie for providing some alternative views. I was particularly interested in the Canadian Government site about seal culls which has opened my eyes - though it was almost 100% off topic. 

Regards,

Brian


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Benjidog,

Not name calling, mate - generalising about a bunch of folk who do exactly the same back.

each to his own, aye.......!

Jonty


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

This feud was started by an automatic news feed from the BBC website. 

I conclude that this is all the BBC's fault - first they dumb down programmes to the point that they are an insult to intelligence. Then the news feeds start civil war in SN. 

What will they do next? (Jester) 

Brian


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Stand and start a screaming match with a Scientologist !!!!!!! ( see tonights Panorama....(Jester) (Jester) (Jester) )


----------



## oldbosun (Jul 8, 2004)

have followed these postings with great interest and I can't see anything wrong so far in what has been said.
I think Davie Tate's observations are very informative and enlightening. 
I've read no more here than what one would expect in a messroom or saloon and with a few respected exceptions, none of us were overly learned on subjects that cropped up, but all had our say with the worst thing maybe being raised voices. 
I hope you don't shut the subject down Benjidog. It would be a shame to stifle opinions, especially from those that impart first hand knowledge on the subject.
This discussion is not getting out of hand. My opinion that is.
Also, some of Greenpeace actions are nothing short of Terrorism at sea. Terrorism against men going about their lawful business.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I have the "distinction" of having done everything in the Fishing Industry except the political side. I was brought up in a fishing family ( we owned the last traditional sidetrawler to fish from Scotland when we sold her in 1988 ) and have been trawling , pair trawling , seine net , pair seine , prawn trawling ( both single net and twin rig ) , pelagic trawl and pelagic purse seine. I have also been a Fishery Officer ( 1987 1 year was enough more money at sea than onshore ) and worked for 9 years as a Fisheries Scientist working at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen ( I am one of a handfull in the UK trained to International standards in ageing Mackerel , I can also age Saithe , Norway Pout ( T.esmarkii ) and Haddock - up to about 8 or 9 never trained on them but they are very similar to other white fish ).

I have done the hard work of Fisheries Research first hand and know what is needed to make any usefull year on year comparison of stock research and estimates. Its just first hand experience of Greenpeace that makes me annoyed with them thats all , they do not have the resources nor the trained scientists in order to do any independant work in Fisheries Research.

It takes 10 ships to survey the EU NE Atlantic fishery zone , each working up to 21 days , each using identical nets/doors , each making 4-5 tows a day. This involves a Scientific crew of at least 8 normally 10 on each vessel. These surveys happen 4 times a year. Therefore you have 3400 tows minimum per year needing 8400 man days work per year.


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

How can you educate people who do not want to be educated ?
"Or already Brainwashed "


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

JoK said:


> LOL, I post about boats engaged in the seal hunt in Canada and get nasty comments, but cod it's a different matter.
> Greenpeace are all about the money they can raise in donations. They will lie, post out of date info and do whatever it takes to keep the money coming in from people who can't bother to research the facts for themselves.


(Thumb) (Jester) Yes JOK leave the seals till after all the fish is gone (Jester)


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Davie,

Qualifications enough for certain - I know who I'd rather listen to!

I think Old Bosun says it all. Never seen a punch up in a messroom in all my 20 years - raised voices, backing downs, throwing the stuff out of hand - but fisticuffs? Nope!

I hope that those who objected against Davie's stand now have the wherewithall to qualify their arguments and let's see a debate going on between those who know and those who - as someone eruditely pointed out - have been 'brainwashed' into the facts. 

Metaphorical gloves off, gentlemen - there's the bell - now, round one?

Jonty


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Jonty,

Seeing as you have used a boxing metaphor I will extend it (possibly to breaking point!). (Jester) 

The Mods are not here to prevent a contest - just to ensure that it is a clean fight with no punches below the belt etc. We will only stop the fight if necessary and have no wish to stifle debate.

As always we ask that members are not insulted. Say what you like about their opinions by all means as long as you back up what you say - but no personal attacks please.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

i


benjidog said:


> Unfortunately whenever the topic of Greenpeace crops up on this site people get carried away by their genuinely held beliefs on both side of the argument. We had a very similar discussion recently about whale hunting in the Antarctic and the antics of Greenpeace activists there.
> 
> Please desist from personal abuse or the Mods will start deleting posts and if necessary close the thread.
> 
> ...


Excuse me, if it was 100% off topic, which in my opinion it wasn't, as it back's up Mr Tait's statements about Greenpeace and how they manipulate press and public opinion for the almighty $$.(Cloud) 

If you think it is off topic, certainly delete it


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

It is interesting how despite the abuse on this post thus far having come totally from one side, both sides are getting the blame. As the environmentalist side seems to consist of me, may I just point out that I have not abused anybody or any institution. I would be grateful if our moderators would kindly take note.
To the case in point: both the links to which we have been referred by other posters are industry based sources; whilst this does not make them wrong, it does make one aware that a certain bias is likely to exist. Mr. Tait mentions, on several occasions, that it takes a certain number of vessels to collect EU data, which he castigates Greenpeace for not participating in. But he himself states that Greenpeace are not allowed on these vessels. Why not? Presumably all the "Greenies" who he believes control the EU wont let them. He also states that the North Sea fishing industry is in crisis. But that crisis, as in many other fisheries around the world, has been brought about by over fishing.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear, I have no personal expertise on the fishing industry. In my experience of the environmental movement, which is limited, Greenpeace and others use statistics from sources that have peer respect in their field and are fully available in the public domain. Now there will always be others who will dispute these; I am sure you will find a nice Japanese marine scientist who will tell you that there are plenty of whales in the world. My principle objection in regard to certain postings on this thread are the derogatory claims in regard to Greenpeace's motives, their finances etc, these are totally unsubstantiated and I for one will not allow them to go unchallenged.
CBoots


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

The reason that Greenpeace are barred from the EU research fleet is a very simple one , they were given access to data and completely ignored it because it showed the stocks to be recovering so they decided instead to publicly accuse the scientists of not knowing what they were doing. 

Greenpeace has had a policy of selective usage of data for decades now. They even came out with a statement that the NE Atlantic Mackerel stocks were going to collapse imminently....slight problem in that the stocks were in a healthier state than they had been for decades.

The data that Greenpeace use for fishing is , and has been for well over a decade , highly selectively taken out of some publically available information but mostly from their so-called scientific advisors ( who have no access to the EU research database ). 

The fishing fleet is in crisis simply due to incompetant EU fisheries commisioners over the last 20 years. Over the years they practically threw money at fishermen to get them to build new bigger boats then stopped the funding overnight in 1988 when they finally realised what they had done. The fishermen cannot be blamed for this , if your given large grants to replace a 25-30 year old vessel with a brand new boat you will take the new boat every time.

The Common Fisheries Policy ( CFP ) has been a disaster from day one , for every fleet in the EU except the French ( who ignore quotas and restrictions and never seem to be fined or forced to cut back on their catches ) and the Spanish ( who have built larger boats and not declared the correct engine power thus increasing the catching power of their fleet instead of reducing it ).

With fishermen restricted to less than 130 days fishing time a year they are forced to work in storms , have no choice but do oil work ( which directly lead to the loss with all hands of the Meridian KY147 in 2006 ) to keep the vessels going and have had to modify their gear drastically since 1996 to the point now that their discard rates are only 15% of the previous amount but because of the large mesh panels designed to allow juvenile fish to escape they also loose fish that are large enough to be landed ( around 15-20% loss depending on the gear worked ). The price of marine diesel has gone from £240 a tonne to £360 a tonne which has made things very difficult for them financially.

I have no problem with green policies that make sense , pollution should be tackled , reliance on oil should be done away with , fish stocks do need carefull management BUT we should not delude ourselves about the real reasons for these Greenpeace stunts - money. If Greenpeace are not causing controversy and on the TV/Radio/Newspapers then they get less money coming in so yes this is all about them raising money in an entirely cynical way which has placed people in serious harms way.


----------



## Eric Wallace (Jan 17, 2006)

(K) (K) shoot them out of the water,they are nothing but trouble makers.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

benjidog said:


> Jonty,
> 
> Seeing as you have used a boxing metaphor I will extend it (possibly to breaking point!). (Jester)
> 
> ...


Er Brian,

I cannot see any evidence on here of insult to anyone - I can see raised written tempers, use of *bold *and _italics_ to stress points - but what I can't see is insult. CBoots - whom I have been in the ring with a few times - used the word abuse but used it to say he has not abused anyone. I agree.

Davie makes his point clearly too, albeit with a degree of frustration which we can all understand - but I still can't see anything untoward going on!

Insult however, is another thing. I do feel though that it is _*'institutionalised'*_ insulting which is a different beat to *personal* insult. Calling Greenpeace a bunch of sandal wearing, tree hugging, eco warriors (who could possibly do with getting a real job) is fine - calling a member that is definitely a no no.

You mods do a brilliant jonb keeping the peace and I think this thread has value to us all. I sincerely hope that we keep it going. We may indeed learn something!

Jonty


----------



## 6639 (Apr 20, 2006)

OOOOOOH GOD ERIC? you've alienated the muslim population of the world with this gung ( gun ) ho! response to minorities, and their different views on life, Please, Please Please, Don't alienate the greenies as well! or we'll have outright world casastrophe. Calm down,it's only a debate? Remember we "Brits " fought the IRA for 28 years until we finally had the inteligence to actually talk about what they really wanted, and strangely the fighting then stopped. Doesn't that tell us all something? Diplomacy!


----------



## ally (Aug 22, 2006)

I watched the news last night in total disbelief that people can be so stupid as to swim in front of a trawler engaged in fishing. Do they realise what the outcome might have been before they did there bit of bravado !! I think not.
If the Endurance had came fast (gear stuck on an obsticle on the sea bed) at the time the swimmer was beside her wires, he would have been history !!! 
If this had happend ashore with someone standing in front of a lorry (for example) he or she would have been arrested by the police,charged, taken to court, and either fined or jailed, so why do these lunitics get away with it ??

Davie makes some very good points in his posts "but" no one but the fisherman themselves know whats happening on the fishing grounds, ok scientists do there work and report back there findings to higher athority who act on there information.Even tho the information is inaccurate us fisherman still get penalized with drastic quota cut's which (in my view) is destroying the fishing industry.Fisherman are out on the grounds 365 days a year trying to earn an honest living so why dont the scientsts, politicians,greenpeace, wake up and listen to what the fisherman are saying about cod stocks instead of sweeping it under the carpet.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Excuse me if I let out a weary sigh and mutter, "here we go again," to myself. Whatever field of the environmental struggle, and I do use the word struggle advisedly, one finds oneself in one will find the accusation of only being in it for the money hurled at you. Now it may interest all you frightfully reasonable chaps out there to know that I have yet to meet anyone, or come across any organisation, that has made any money out of environmental activism. I am aware of plenty of individuals and organisations on the other side of the trenches who have an extremely strong financial interest in keeping the status quo; but never let it be suggested that they might bend the figures, missuse the "facts" etc. As to the vexed topic of abuse, I am sorry but continuous references to persons and organisations as being corrupt, having hidden agendas, being incapable of real work etc, even if they do not refer to me personnally, I do find offensive. I am pretty certain that if I were to make similar and totally unsubstantiated references to individuals and institutions that many of my detractors on this site support and believe in the howls of protest would be deafening. And no, I don't regard the trading of insults and snide remarks as being healthy debate. I am aware that David regards himself as the expert on matters regarding fisheries, and I happily concede that he no doubt has greater experience in this area than I do. That does not mean that I accept his interpretation of the research as being the end of the story. And incidentally, from a conservation perspective, it is of no matter whether the causes are French, Spanish, or anyone else for that matter, the end result remains the same. If Aussies were harpooning whales in the Antarctic I would still oppose it. As to that hoary old chesnut, being reasonable; the problem with "being reasonable" is it changes nothing. How is one reasonable when faced with a Japanese whaling fleet hell bent on slaughtering a thousand whales? How does one take a reasonable stance on pollution when faced with an all powerfull coal industry that enjoys accross the board government support? Of course there are those who take a "reasonable" approach, and richly rewarded they tend to be too. But I am afraid that to those of us concerned with real results they appear as mere stooges.
That is about all I want to say on the matter. And incidentally, I do have a useful job, I don't have a beard or hug trees, and I am not a member of Greenpeace; I do, however, occassionally wear sandals, it is hot in Australia after all.
CBoots


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

CBoots I had and have no intention of insulting you directly , we are all free to hold our own opinions and I would condemn anyone that tried to stop anyone from expressing a genuinly held view.

The problems I have with Greenpeace , as stated in my posts above , are from long term dealings with the organisation. They were given free access to the EU database and because the research data was 180' to what they were saying ( the stocks were recovering )they publically tried to blacken the names of ALL EU Scientists. 

The French fleet have overfished the Bluefin Tuna stocks for the last 5-8 years but unlike the Scottish and Eire pelagic fleets ( which did overfish Mackerel and Herring but to nothing like the same degree as the Tuna , they have to repay the over quota catches over the next 5 years - total of 50,000t on a quota of 1million Tonnes a year ) the French refuse to pay back the over quota and the EU refuses to push the matter because it is France.

If Greenpeace had a change of leadership , became less confrontational ( after all the International Fund for Animal Welfare and several other Green pressure groups actively participate with the fishing fleets and the EU governments to find solutions to help the stocks AND protect as many jobs in the fishing industry as possible ) and took a constructive attitude towards rebuilding the stocks , along with keeping the fishing industry alive instead of trying to totally destroy ALL fishing the world over , then i'm sure the EU would allow them to go out on the research trips.


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

If organisations ,politicians,greenies etc etc etc ,actually stopped & listened ,i,ll emphasize that word again LISTENED ,to the people ,many of whom have been involved in the industry all their lives ,then maybe then ,they would realise these people actually know what they are speaking about .
Lol this thread could go on until doomsday (which according to some people maybe sooner rather than later ) and still no agreement would be reached .
Shall we agree to disagree ?


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Oh I can see where this is going and my hand is on the hilt of my (sheathed) sword as I write. No, hang on, Shakespeare did say the pen is mightier so I'll put the sword away and threaten to strike someone with my keyboard instead - less lethal, more fun.........more um.....thoughfully environmental as no blood is spilled and so no chance of infection, mess etc. 

We each have our views. That is undisputable fact. However, this appears to be a debate that Davie is backing with hard fact. C Boots - sorry, but I have to say it - is back filling without any. Might I cautiously suggest that to widen the debate, facts are produced to challenge Davie? Things like_ I am sorry but continuous references to persons and organisations as being corrupt, having hidden agendas, being incapable of real work etc, even if they do not refer to me personnally, I do find offensive._ I meant as a tongue in cheek reference held about Green eco terrorists. Apologies (Blush) I meant 'eco warriors'. Wash my mouth out with soap!

It does seem as though Davie's fact reference all of these - if they wont use the figures, that's a hidden agenda; Not using facts is corrupt (as it strengthens their case in the public eye and as we all know, Joe Public is guilty of relying on what he sees or is that sexist? Hold on, lemme think of a word....) Joe and _Josephine _Public then.....As for incapable of real work. They sail the oceans blue, getting in the way of things like, oh I don't know, fishing trawlers....? That's not work - it's a privilege. They are funded by the organisation - they are in fact 'shock troops' for that organisation - and they aren't paid so, _ergo sum_ they are not working. What's wrong with that description of them? Work = pay for labour. This is a labour of love = not work.

As for _'howls of protest'_ if you made a swing for the detractors, well yes. We defend what we believe and whilst CBoots is defending his stance, Davie is doing so for the whole fishing fleet - which is commendable.

Until I see hard and indisputable facts presented as such and backed up by researched evidence, I am with Davie on this one. Truth is, I have little time for the Eco Groups whose agenda is purely political. If they really meant what they stood up for - and there are groups that do - then I will lend them support if I believe the cause is worthwhile. Greenpeace? Ah, sorry - they are not in that leauge.........

Contenciously yours.

Jonty


----------



## Coastie (Aug 24, 2005)

I seem to recall, though I may be wrong (although I'm sure I'm not) about 20 years ago, Greenpeace charged people £1,200 for a tour of duty aboard one of their ships. (I seem to think it was the Rainbow Warrior) Can't remember how long the tour of duty was for, though.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I happen to believe that ALL of the white fish and prawn trawling fleets are more concerned with rebuilding the stocks for the future than anyone from Greenpeace will ever be. No fisherman wants to destroy the fish stocks , why put yourself out of business and why deny your own children the right to make a living from the sea. This is what the eco-activists don't seem to understand. Fishermen just want a stable quota , enough days at sea to catch it , a decent price on the market to earn a living from and some type of guarantee for the future.

Without stability fishermen cannot plan for the future , they cannot build new boats ( which altho more powerfull than previous classes cost a lot of money to put to sea and you need the licence's from 2 older trawlers to put one new one in the water which means the fleet has shrunk by 65% over the last 15 years ) which cost around £2m for a 18-19m twin rig trawler or £3m+ for a 28m white fish trawler / pair trawler.

The Fishermen know what is happening out in the seas better than any scientist or eco-activist will ever know. When I was a scientist it took me 4-5 years to convince the senior guys to really listen to the Fishermen which they have been doing for 10-12 years now. I used to get accurate catch rates , where the fish were caught , told when they had come across large hauls of smaller fish , etc ,etc and that information was given freely because the Fishermen knew that I had been a fisherman myself and that the information they provided would never be told to anyone outside of the Lab.

Greenpeace used to do good work but they have been on a purely publicity for publicitys sakes mission for the last 10-15 years in my view.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Coastie,

Good point - and in my humble opinion, takes them from being eco warriors and into the realms of people with the means to go out for 'sport' against the plebian masses (Can you tell I studied Marx, by the way? No, not the one with the moustache - the Russian one? )

Political interference in what is, after all, not just a tradition amongst fishing communities but their very way of life paints fishermen as rapacious brigands whose sole aim is the making of money. That is clearly not true, as anyone who watched the 'Trawlermen' series will testify. It is, pure and simple, tradition and survival in a very unfriendly world. Moreso, communities whose very existance relies on the sea for its living possibly have more of a vested interest in consveration than any number of 'do gooders' whose financial position ensures they really will not be affected whether communities die as a result of their action or not.

Paying for the pleasure of fiollowing their politics sickens me. They would be better off paying that money into a community fund and volunteering for a turn on a trawler to see, first hand, not just the economic impact fishing has but also to get alongside those folk who know what they are at - and equally, work to protect their own environment in order to sustain it. 

If I come across as an antagonist where Greenpeace is concerned, then so be it. There are excellent charities out there who give more than they take, voluntarily, and without the aim of setting the world on fire with their twisted 'Hearts and Minds' philosopy that will eventually have us all living up trees, eating woodland foilage - whilst burning dead wood to cook mushrooms over, sitting around the camp fire singing songs about Wally The White Whale.

One such charity is the RNLI. Men and women who give their time and put their lives at risk following the sea - and who do so without any fuss and bother out of a sense of true activism. That is the meaning of community and single minded solidarity.

That is something worth investing in - and a lesson to organisations like Greenpeace who practice high seas japes and risk the lives of others as a result. Sensationalism not service.

We are so very good in this country at following new fads, less so when it comes to preserving our culture, traditions and sense of community.

Jonty


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Its not just the fishermen who's livelyhood is on the line , its entire towns and villages. It needs 6 or 7 people working onshore ( between engineers , net makers , ship repairers , painters , grocers , butchers [ altho simply due to the prices most boats get their food from the big supermarkets now ] , shop workers [ don't forget that without the money the fishermen make furniture shops , clothes shops , car dealerships , etc , etc cannot survive ] , etc for each individual fisherman.

Fraserburgh has around 600 fishermen left ( used to be 2000 ) so that means a minimum of 3600 people ashore ( 4200 jobs in total ) are dependant on what the fishermen earn at sea. In simple ecconomic terms the closure of the North Sea would mean whole towns becoming unemployment blackspots with tens of thousands of people out of work with absolutely no way to get more work as the alternative jobs will simply never be there.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Been through all this before on this site ! 

Please realise that Greenpeace is a " Business "

Please try and get a Financial Statement and publish it ! Good Luck !

Derek


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

I had intended to make my last post my last word on this thread but I shall make a brief reappearance in yet another doubtless vain attempt to cast some light into the darkness. I have not, and do not intend to get into a statistics war with Mr. Tait on this topic. He obviously does not accept the opposing view, and it was never my intention to argue Greenpeace's case for them. My intention was to challenge some of the plainly ridiculous assertions that were being made against the organisation and others in the environmental movement. Suffice to say that the problem that I have with Mr. Tait's agrument is that if it were correct then there would appear to be no problem at all in the fisheries and that is clearly not the case. I shall repeat what I said earlier; the problem in the fisheries of the world is over fishing, by fishermen, and not Greenpeace. The suggestion that the solution to the problem is best left to those who caused it in the first place I am afraid I cannot take seriously. As to Greenpeace as an organisation, of course it raises funds as best it can, but like everyone else in the field it is run on a bootlace. Despite what many appear to imagine there are no massive executive salaries, stretch limos or executive jets; you'd do better looking on the other side of the trenches for them. As to publicity, well that comes pretty hard to get, and it is usually pretty bad when you get it. The world media, it may interest some of you to know, is not controlled by environmentalists, and neither are government propaganda machines. Although none of you seem to credit it, there are people who believe in causes and are prepared to go to great lengths and considerable personal sacrifice in support of them. The broad masses will sneer and dismiss them as nutters, commies, the great unwashed, only in it for the money etc. But it is dedicated minorities who change the world, and sometimes they get it right. Don't forget the masses howled for the crucifixion, jeez, those guys really did have beards and wear sandalls, and were a threat to the status quo.
That is positively my last say on this matter; and incidentally, ddraigmor, Marx- Karl that is - was German.
CBoots


----------



## mark m (Jan 27, 2007)

mark m said:


> How can you educate people who do not want to be educated ?
> "Or already Brainwashed "


(Thumb)


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

cboots said:


> Suffice to say that the problem that I have with Mr. Tait's agrument is that if it were correct then there would appear to be no problem at all in the fisheries and that is clearly not the case. I shall repeat what I said earlier; the problem in the fisheries of the world is over fishing, by fishermen, and not Greenpeace.
> CBoots


And i'm afraid you have failed to understand my points completely too. My entire posts were about the EU fleet fishing NE Atlantic waters not the World in general.

The fishing fleet has been cut by over 70% in just the last 10 years , the fleet used to be unlimited in days at sea ( some fished 300-320 days per year ) but are now limited to around 120 days per year ( name me ANY other industry that is only allowed to work for 4 months per year because of legally binding restrictions ) , the nets used to be 70mm for prawn fishing now 100mm with a 90mm square mesh panel to allow the escape of undersize fish , whitefish boats used to work 90mm nets but now work 120-140mm nets with 100mm square mesh panels to reduce small fish catches.

The fishing effort is effectively 20% of the levels they were 10 years ago. The fishermen were not allocated enough days at sea last year to even catch the quota they were given ( only took 75% of the haddock quota ) so your arguement that it is all the fishermens fault is wrong in fact and it is totally wrong and totally false to try and blame the Scottish fleet as you do for the problems caused by unregulated fishing in other parts of the world.

I do not deny that there are problems around the world with serious unregulated overfishing which are threatening to destroy stocks , BUT , do not try to say the Scottish and EU fleet are doing the same in the NE Atlantic because it patently is not.

No fisherman in Scotland/EU wants to destroy the very stocks that give them a living wage - and thats all it is not a fortune for the vast majority of the men - they all have boats that have loans to repay , mens wages to pay , their own younger family members coming up behind them to think about. Even earning £1000 for a 10 day trip is being paid less than the UK minimum wage ( 20-22hrs a day at times for 10 days - 200 hours - UK minimum wage £5.84 * 200 = £1168 and that is at plain time no overtime nothing extra , I once calculated my actual wage to be £2.80 per hour considered slave wages nowadays ).

I have calculated the wages a fisherman would get at the minimum wage for a normal trip :

Sail midnight Sunday

Monday to Friday - 20hrs per day = 100hrs of which 48hrs are at £5.84 and 52hrs at time and a half £8.76 = £735.84
Saturday and Sunday - 40hrs at double time £11.68 = £467.20
Monday to Wednesday - 20 hrs per day of which 29hrs would be normal time £5.84 and 31hrs at time and a half £8.76 = £440.92
Land Thursday morning 0100 clear from boat after all end of trip jobs 1000hrs so 2hrs at £5.84 and 7hrs at time and a half £8.76 = £73

Total before Income tax , National Insurance = £1716.96

That is allowing a 3hr steam on the Sunday and a 3hr steam back on the Wednesday night from fishing grounds that can have heavy fishing close to Peterhead


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Quoye CBoots: _.....there are people who believe in causes and are prepared to go to great lengths and considerable personal sacrifice in support of them. The broad masses will sneer and dismiss them as nutters, commies, the great unwashed, only in it for the money etc. But it is dedicated minorities who change the world, and sometimes they get it right. Don't forget the masses howled for the crucifixion, jeez, those guys really did have beards and wear sandalls, and were a threat to the status quo.
That is positively my last say on this matter; _

Masses howled for the crucifixion? That made them, what? Right? Wrong? Oh, that opens a huge argument! Not a road to go down as I am an agnostic and I'll leave that particular argument to tghose who believe!

As for your portrayal of the activists as some type of heoic minority - sorry, in this case, swimming in front of a fishing boat puts that as a criminal offence. Endagering life, navigation - whatever. Criminal however. How can you support criminal activity? 


_and incidentally, ddraigmor, Marx- Karl that is - was German._ I know that! The point I was making is that he was the father of modern communism and its principle but reading it back, you're right. I was wrong.

Good response davie - you'd think that wage was a huge one when calculated over a year - but what is often forgotten is that weather and maintenance keep the boats in - and there is no wage then. So overall, it's not the King's Ransom some folk attribute it as being.

Jonty


----------

