# Fish Quotas - Trawlers.



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

This is something that has always puzzled me. Many years back, when fishing quotas and time limits were impossed on our trawling fleets, I have struggled to understand how they are conserving our fish stocks. Obviously if the number of trawlers are limited then the amount of fish caught will drop, so conserving the stock. However how do you conserve say 'Cod' by throwing it back if you have taken your set quota. The fish is already dead so how is it conserving the species?
This applies to all fish. This came back to me when watching the 'Trawlerman' series. When one of the prawn boats had a situation when they would have to ditch all the fish as they were not allowed to catch above a set amount. All this fish was dead so how is that conservation. 
When I was working we had a great deal of contact with the FPV's and also the Watchdog aircraft. I could never understand it then and I still cannot.
Over to you.
Hawkey01 (Cloud)


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

The beaureaucrats and politicians in Brussels still get paid, as does Blair and co, the fish have no feelings and we the consumer pay for the wastage, so the only ones who suffer are the fishermen, and who cares about them.

Cynic, moi?


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

The trouble is that those in authority are not able to think, nor are they able to use what little reasoning powers they have as human beings; they all have to perform to each other like some internal flea circus, that only the mindless can see in operation. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the dead fish which have to be thrown back do absolutely NOTHING to conserve fishstocks; but they have no answer, so they hide behind their chairbacks, as the play card games on their computers, only jumping to attention when someone phones or writes to help solve their crossword puzzle. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything, yet the figures remain truthful to the intelligent. I regret to say that "bureaucratic intelligence" is a contradiction in terms. Leave it to those on the sea to work their own solution. I have been talking today with such men. As you may have guessed I have little time for mindless bureaucracy.


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

Good question Hawey 01. And you are quite right John, this is just more beaurocratic madness that comes out of Brussels like straight bananas or tomatoes being exactly the same size etc?!. I read something a few weeks ago where farmers are ditching produce because it is not presentable for supermarkets under the same crazy rules, but perfectly good quality. I too have been watching the excellent Trawlerman series and just as bemused as you Hawkeye when the fishermen have to thow dead fish back into the sea if they are above their quota. Of course this is not conservation, and I am sure that trawlermen are as keen on conservation as anybody if policed correctly because proper conservation means that the livelyhoods of the next generation is not at threat rather than being greedy for today, and not looking at tomorrow. I suppose authorities have to act if fishermen exceed their quota, but surely these jobs-worth beaurocrats can overlook it if only slightly over. Not only is this a few extra quid for those who earn every penny they get, but more food for the shops instead of wasting it by throwing it overboard. Of course some will try it on by always being well over, but in this politically correct, and beaurocratic world, has common sense been totally eradicated?!. Briefly, on a different subject, a bus driver would not allow my granddaughter on the bus because her bus pass had a slight nick in it. I bought a hat writing Jobs Worth on it, then with the help of my grandaughter tracked him down and gave it to him. Perpaps we should all buy our politicians in Brussels, and others a hat?!!. David


----------



## fredkinghorn (Jul 28, 2005)

I agree Hawkeye01, could never understand fish quotas, as you point out, the fish are dead anyway. 
I suggest that quotas are done away with, likewise net mesh sizes and let the fishermen get as much out of the sea while they can.

fred

"still not banged the door "


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

Having worked for the Fishermens' Mission, I am very concious that quotas are a very touchy subject indeed. One has only to look at the Grand Banks to see how over-fishing of those rich fish stocks has left them now virtually non-existant. At the risk of upsetting some, I firmly believe, that in many ways we must all accept a share of the reponsibility for what is happening. I saw a European trawler not so long ago busily engaged in hoovering up sand eels, to be turned into pet dog food, which is simply taking out a layer of nature's food-chain. I also lived next door to a small family-run wet fish shop for many years with the Father and son fishing whilst the Wife sold the catch in the shop and it was perfectly adequate in serving its local community. Today, however, just look at what is available in any Supermarket throughout the country and ask yourself as to whether this exploitation is sustainable. I am sure I will get shot down over this but to me the answer is for fishermen and scientists to sit down together and to pool their expertise without interference from politicians. I find it hard to believe that the faceless wonders who have not the faintest idea of what fishing is about, can honestly believe that their policy of throwing dead fish back can be seen as some sort of conservation. It is a very serious situation both for the livelehood of our fishermen and for future generations and I am sure the only way it can be resolved is for the politicians to stop meddling and leave it to the experts to find the answers that are needed.
Peter4447 (Night)


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

But that would leave nothing for future generations Fred if fishermen got as much out of the sea as they could by having mesh nets so small that they catch the young as well. That would be a fast route to total extinction of all species. Yes, it is crazy throwing fish back into the sea that are dead anyway just to satisfy silly rules. But it would be equally as crazy not to have quota's if sensibly controlled by throwing live fish back if too small. Having small nets that catch everything and throwing nothing back, even if live is pure madness. Doing so would mean our grandchildren and their children have nothing to eat if we fish our seas to extinction in this era. Now that really would be irresponsible and shortsightedness of the highest order. I have a 5 year old great grandson, and I really do fear for his future if our attitude is for today, not caring about tomorrow. Peter447 is right, policitians should stop meddling and leave it to experts in the fishing industry to come up with an answer for this and future generations. David


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

My earlier comment was meant as a cynical jibe at faceless suits. However, on a serious note:-

I doubt that more than a very few people dissagree with some policy of conservation. The crime as I see it is to throw dead fish back. I know that some people, even fishermen will attempt to exploit any loophole in pursuit of profit. Both my son and my son in law have served in the Andrew on Fishery protection vessels (The beloved Island class) and have many stories of rogue fishermen. Our waters should be robustly policed, and offenders dealt with. It is true that many types of contraband, drugs etc, are destroyed having been seized. However, many other types, alcohol etc are recycled to the benifit of us all. I do not see why fishermen who return to their ports with fish which they should not have, which could be described also as contraband, cannot be dealt with more sensibly. Those who have genuinely caught the wrong species could perhaps have it taken off their legitimate quota on a pro rata basis. Those rascalls who regularly or persistantly 'accidently' catch the wrong species can be dealt with in some other way. Undoubtadly some rogue fishermen will dump fish to destroy evidence of their incompetence, but these should, if and when caught, be dealt with by the authorities.

I believe that by and large fishermen are an admirable bunch of hard working men trying to make a very hard living in the face of beaureaucracy, much like farmers.

My underlying point is that to encourage, require or accept that fishermen deliberately dump catches is criminal.

John Trem


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

I think its a little simplistic to blame the politicians for everything, they do take advice from so called experts and quite often it is the experts that come up with the solutions that the politicians get blamed for.


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

I take your point Jeff, but I put politicians, bereaucrats and so called experts into the same category. They get paid whatever the outcome of their policies.

John Trem


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

I'm not so sure that is true John, but if we do away with politicians, bureaucats and experts what are we left with?


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

You are right Jeff, politicians do take advice from so-called experts often taking wrong advice then taking the blame for it. I can only speak with authority on the medical profession, and politicians I have spoken to personally including two former Prime Ministers. They try very hard to understand professions when making important decisions. But those decisions are often based on information given for political ends on behalf of the person giving it. So when it goes wrong, the politician is blamed because they lacked the knowlege of that profession to realise that the infomation given was not correct. I saw this every day in the medical profession where decisions were made in good faith, but results there for all to see. So I would assume that the fishing industry and indeed all others is no different. David


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

David and Jeff, I too have had dealings with senior politicians, and have been consulted as an 'expert' in a particular field. Whilst my experience is only relevant to the individuals with whom I dealt, I formed the opinion that they had already made up their mind, (which in this instance was contrary to ours) and only consulted us 'experts' in order that when legislation regarding this subject was subsequently changed, in this instance to appease popular opinion, they could list 'experts' whom they had consulted. My experience of life has made me cynical about 'the system', however I have to confess that I do not currently have an alternative.

To be lighthearted again, and to slightly misquote Groucho Marks, I would never vote for anyone who asked me to vote for them.

Best wishes,

John Trem


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

Its an imperfect World and we all make mistakes the best we can hope for is that these mistakes are done in good faith, As for politicians, they are just like the rest of us some good, some bad and some evil.


----------



## Ian (Mar 27, 2004)

at this moment & time Jeff can we pick the good from the bad? someone put them there and it was not me. dont know the answer to this one, maybe a rocket to the moon, with them all aboard.


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

I accept it may sound simplistic to blame the politicians but the point I was trying to make is a very simple one. Just prior to the last 3 General Elections, the political parties have appeared in force in the town in which I live looking for the votes of what is a predominently fishing community. They have all promised that things would be better for fishermen if they were elected then, once the election is over its the same old story. The losers go very quiet and the same old worn out line is touted by the winners: We have got the best deal we can for our fishermen in Brussels. Hand in hand with this comes another round of draconian measures such as quotas.
The point I am making is let the fishing industry and experts work together to find the answers on the besy ways of conservation, whilst the politicians should concentrate and deal with the political issues that in many ways are the root cause of the problem - foreign nationals grabbing undersized fish, licences going to foreign flagged vessels etc. I appreciate that there are some fishermen who will try and bend the rules but that is the same everywhere. I am firmly conviced, however, that politicians take a one-sided view by looking only at the scientific evidence and then blaming the fishing industry for everything as the easy way out, rather than having the political will to address the major problems that the industry faces and which in so many cases are not of its own making.
Peter4447


----------



## RayJordandpo (Feb 23, 2006)

*Our PM*



John Tremelling said:


> The beaureaucrats and politicians in Brussels still get paid, as does Blair and co, the fish have no feelings and we the consumer pay for the wastage, so the only ones who suffer are the fishermen, and who cares about them.
> 
> Cynic, moi?


I think a good nickname for Tony Blair would be "Bonsai" After all what is a bonsai - A "Little Bush"
Rayjordandpo


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Scientific evidence can be tweaked and displayed ( even "sexed up" in one
notorious case, recently ); but one key factor, is that many politicians and decision makers have little or no understanding of the subjects in which they are making the decisions; they are, for all that, ordinary people, who have been jockeyed and elected into these positions, and when they eventually end up in these positions, they are left with the same feelings as Robert Redford in "The Candidate", everyone disappears and he is left saying " what do I do now?". The decisions should be made by those well versed in the subject. I have just recently spoken to fishing crew, and the comment is that the sea beds themselves are being destroyed by chains and heavy gear; the food chain and sustainability is affected by this loss of base eco culture.
We have the same problem in Town & Country Planning - decisions which affect the local economy and local environment, made by butchers and bakers and candlestick makers - nothing against the ordinary man, but we do need a high proportion of these committees made up of specialist in the field and that includes fishing fraternity members.


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

it is a world wide problem,as with whale hunting etc,back in the fiftys the japanese fishing boats could be seen all round the world,then the long liners,politions and the experts they consult have no answer to the problem, we have the same problem down under. at least our govt.is looking backwards to history to help solve the problem,prison hulks for illegal fishing in OZ waters.at woolworths to-day specials were fresh water fillets from lake victoria


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

a tipical japanese fishing vessel found in most areas of the world,columbo1957


----------



## fredkinghorn (Jul 28, 2005)

It comes as no surprise to to me, one of these strange individuals actually engaged in local and national politics, that I am still reading about "faceless bureaucrats, fat cats, butchers and bakers " etc. Do people really think that MP's and Local Councils don't listen to the advice given by specialists in fields such as planning? My own experience with politicians is that they are hard-working and dedicated people. There are the "rogues" as in all walks of life including business and commerce. Let us not put all in the same boat. I suppose I shall soon be reading about "long holidays with pay " etc.
I did like the one about the straight bananas, straight out of the "Daily Mail", it never happened Pompeyfan, but it does sound funny.
Sorry to bring a political slant to this thread but I didn't start it. I also suggest that when we have a topic posted, replies should be "vetted" Steve to stop this petty sniping at people elected to do a job from which others shy away.

fred

" still closing the door quietly"


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

Vetting Fred? Do you not agree with free speech and debate upon honestly held opinions? 

I try not to offend, but if anyone is offended please say so and I shall decline to make further comments.

John Tremelling, currently new and perhaps soon to be past member.


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

Glad you found the straight bananas funny Fred. I never buy the Daily Mail. As I used to say to my staff, never make assumptions?!. 

Can't remember where I read about straight bananas, but I used it as an example of the type of crazy rules coming out of Brussels. For the record, I am not biassed to any political party or indeed anything, and find it annoying that some people are or assume I am. As a medical professional, I treated everybody irrespective of political or religious beliefs. 

Treeve is right when he states that politicians have little or no understanding of the subjects they are making a decision on. That is not their fault. How can they be experts on everything?. As Treeve said, they are ordinary people. Some are qualified in something or other, but none are experts on everything finding it difficult to understand people who are. 

Fred is also right, every politician I have met are hard working dedicated people, and I am talking about all parties, not biassed to one. I have spoken directly to some of them about my own profession including two Prime Ministers. They listen intently, then ask questions often indicating they have not understood a single word I said. And why should they, it took me 5 years just to learn the basics. I have spoken to politicians who were medical professionals themselves, put in positons in government where they adivsed the PM. One told me that their boss did not understand the question, let alone the answer. Perhaps that is why many years ago that a Supermarket expert was responsible for major reforms in the NHS much to my and the BMA disaproval. The results are obvious to all whether a medical expert or not.

You do therefore not have to be a rocket scientists to work out why the fishing industry has the problem which this thread is all about. Sorry if I quote my own profession when talking about another. But if politicians don't understand medical matters even when talking to experts, they won't understand the fishing industry either. David


----------



## Pat McCardle (Jun 12, 2005)

I would suggest the placing of artificial reefs around our coastlines. Mis-shaped concrete blocks, hulks etc. Look at the fish stocks they found off New York, all in an area where old vehicle tyres had been getting dumped for years. All the old tyres lashed to metal beams, the fish stocks found prompted other countries to do the same. Just an idea but I think it would work? (Thumb)


----------



## Peter Dryden (Apr 14, 2006)

*Goverment and Experts*

_"I think its a little simplistic to blame the politicians for everything, they do take advice from so called experts and quite often it is the experts that come up with the solutions that the politicians get blamed for"_(J Egan)

I think the problem is that the Government will initiate these reports and than only carry out part of the reports recomendations.
My profession is teaching, and I can look at the Kennedy report of 1997 to bang up to date with the Tomlinson report to see that the recomendations in these reports were never fully enacted, had they been then perhaps Education would not be the mish-mash it is at present.
Is it true that the other european countries are allowed to fish in waters that our Government has banned our fisherman to fish in? or is this one of the many anti- European myths that fly about 

Peter


----------



## Frank P (Mar 13, 2005)

One of my friends was the skipper of his own fishing boat, and he said that "a fishermans worst enemy, was not the politicians, but the fisherman himself, because when he finds the fish he will not stop fishing untill he is forced to". The fisherman is always looking for more efficient methods of hoovering (netting) up the fish, and the stocks will not last forever.

Frank


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

Sorry Fred if I have caused offence but I can assure you that it was most certainly not intended. Having spent 7 years as an HIV/AIDS Educator, I can assure you that putting people in boxes is not something that I indulge in. I am equally aware that fishermen are not angels and if the rules can be flouted there are those who will do exactly that. I could quite happily quote examples but I will not do so because it would be grossly unfair to do so to the vast majority of hard working fishermen who struggle to survive in an industry that is subject to so much red tape and beauocracy. My argument, however, remains unchanged because fishermen do not catch fish just for the fun of it, if the demand was not there those fish would not be caught. So until and unless politicans (of whatever persuasion) are prepared to grasp the nettle and address the real issues, I cannot see how conservation alone can provide the solution. As has already been mentioned in this thread it is a global problem, one has only to look at what is happening off the shores of Africa and to the local communities there, as modern high-tech trawlers move in to search for fresh stocks as the traditional fishing grounds become exhausted.
Peter4447


----------



## fredkinghorn (Jul 28, 2005)

Ah, now Padre, I didn't take offence, far from it I can agree with a lot of your comments. My comments were meant for those who can do nothing but try and ridicule people in the political world. If they have strong views, good luck to them but I don't think this is the place to air them. So easy to sit behind a keyboard and think up funny jibes, a lot more difficult to go door-to-door and face-to-face with people prior to election and hear their views and give yours.
I will say no more on this subject.

fred.

" the auld hundred "


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

I think what we have here is an example of what makes Great Britain; we have the right to free speech. I have seen first hand all that I have talked about, the total blind eye to serious technical and physical evidence by bureaucrats and even local councillors. On top of this, we have here a microcosm of just what we are talking about; we make decisions and judgements, based on our own received intake and experience; and that is just how politicians have to work; I have NO beef with politicians for the reasons stated above; my beef is with a bureaucracy that insists on quotas that require dead fish to be dumped at sea, in an effort to sustain fish stocks. I have been an advocator of a common Europe, since I was a teenager; a unified States of Europe, with a common good goal, but NOT a standardised one. One where we retain our individuality in ourselves, our countries and our produce. The idea of artificial reefs has proven to be one very simple and effective way of increasing habitat particularly here in the West. If there are to be quotas, which does seem to be a sensible solution as an interim measure, then, if a catch exceeds the quota ( withing a certain reasonable limit ) then why not sell the extra fish and put the income towards schemes of replenishing farms or into building artificial reefs, instead of dumping the dead fish.


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

treeve whatever is decided will be wrong and politicians will be blamed, if any over catch was put on the market and profits were used to pay for conservation measures it would bring down the price the fishermen recieve at the markets and their allowable quota's would be worth less which would lead to further hardship for the fishing industry.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

A Very Good Point, Jeff - Thank you


----------



## OAK LEAF (Feb 25, 2006)

How much fish is being dumped then.
Very little, a look at the adverts in Fishing News will show you that any amount of quota for any species can be leased, because quotas are tradeable and in fact used by banks as collateral. Some boats are paying six figure sums to lease quota annually.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

*Europe and Loss of Sovereignty*



treeve said:


> a unified States of Europe, with a common good goal, but NOT a standardised one.


The often quoted "loss of sovereignty" that is involved in proper integration within the European Union is simply a figment of the overheated imagination of the editors of British tabloid newspapers. Anyone that has spent even a week in France (outside Paris) or Italy, let alone Germany and Spain, cannot believe that the people there think that they are giving up their sovereignty because of their enthusiasm for the EU. They are in it for what they can get out of it. If you have seen the level of competition between the various regions of France, and the intense desire to promote local products above all others, there is no way that you would believe that a Frenchman would sacrifice his Frenchness to some other organisation or federal structure. If you can travel through north-eastern Aquitaine and see any other cattle than the Limousin breed you will be very lucky. In the UK you will see cars built everywhere except the UK; in France or Italy the majority of cars wil be French or Italian. Giving up their local - never mind their national - sovereignty to the EU - no way!

The British approach is like being a member of a club to which subscriptions must be paid in advance, then refusing to attend any meetings or activities but claiming that the outcome is unacceptable. All over Europe you can see signs announcing that newly-built roads, bridges, tunnels, sports facilties and the like have been partially funded by grants from the EU. You don't see them in the UK because local government must first put up a proportion of the funding and the EU then supplies the remainder. Other countries find this no problem but the UK cannot find the motivation to meet the requirements.

The UK pays its membership fees but because it can't be bothered to get involved, it doesn't get the full benefits.

At the start of the 1960s when I visited Ireland, Spain and Italy for the first time, their transport infrastructure was a joke, as were their social structures which were little removed from 3rd World status. Going there today shows just how much progress they have made and how they have benefited from intelligent use of the EU's assistance. Now it it is the UK that is barely above 3rd World levels. Don't knock the EU, blame the "managers" of "UK plc" who, regardless of their political colour, have singularly failed to match those of other EU countries.

Ron


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Absolutely agree with you, 100%, Ron. That has been uppermost all along.
I have travelled though Europe over the past 48 years, and I too can see the difference. I have always been rather concerned at the anti-Europe campaign, and its effect on the perception by European countries of Britain. 
My family often have considered that I would rather be in Europe than in Britain, the way I talk at home. I sincerely hope that I have not painted a negative approach to Europe. I have succeeded in the past in securing European Grants for local restoration works, but the projects failed as a result of not being able to secure the remaining funds locally.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

OAK LEAF said:


> How much fish is being dumped then.
> Very little, a look at the adverts in Fishing News will show you that any amount of quota for any species can be leased, because quotas are tradeable and in fact used by banks as collateral. Some boats are paying six figure sums to lease quota annually.


This is a fascinating revelation to me, Oak Leaf; I'll see what I can find from official sources .... Thank you


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

A healthy debate. Treeve and Ron, you have my vote, but having won it please continue to use it as you wish, unlike the Lord High Admiral when he boarded HMS Pinafore, who by his own admition 'always followed his parties call, and never thought of thinking for himself at all'.

John Trem


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

There is no doubt the EU is benificial to the poorer members but this is at the expense of the richer countries, the problem (For the Uk) will get steadily worse as the borders of the EU are expanded eastwards yet again next year.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Again, spot on, Jeff, but surely that's how, in an ideal world, it should be ... the rich giving a helping hand to the poor? Sharing, side by side. We don't know what it is to live in a truly poverty struck country, here in Britain, we don't know what it is to live in a country dominated by the militia? I was once asked in an interview with Polish Radio, why it is that Britain allows protests and objections to political actions, and even people in our country who could be described as disruptive; my reply was that Britain prides itself on free speech and in fact tolerates intolerance. Obviously I qualified this by saying that we do not live in a country that allows lawlessness. Three of my favourite singing performers are Ukrainian ... not that long ago, they would have been imprisoned or executed for their right to sing in their native language, Ukrainian. We have never known that type of control. I am glad I live in this fine country - but I want it to be part of Europe... (*))


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

I admire your outlook on the World treeve, I feel very selfish in comparison, however I believe the main winners in the expanded EU are multinational companies who see the Eastwards expansion as means of flooding the market with cheap labour to the detriment of the population of Western Europe.


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

fish, over suply,quota's does anybody know what percentage of fish that is dumped from the shops,after useby date,because fresh fish is'nt fresh,unless you get it from the trawler when it docks.and if they have been out for 7 days?


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeff Egan said:


> I admire your outlook on the World treeve, I feel very selfish in comparison, however I believe the main winners in the expanded EU are multinational companies who see the Eastwards expansion as means of flooding the market with cheap labour to the detriment of the population of Western Europe.


If you want me to comment on multinational companies and the cheap labour issues, then you are really opening the "can of worms" ... I have a very dim view of groups who abuse and exploit others' vulnerabilities. I could not agree with you more. But, everything comes at a price. I have so often heard that a favour never goes unpunished. This, despite my rosy ideals, is not an ideal World. (Thumb)


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

dom said:


> fish, over suply,quota's does anybody know what percentage of fish that is dumped from the shops,after useby date,because fresh fish is'nt fresh,unless you get it from the trawler when it docks.and if they have been out for 7 days?


Dom, you have raised another very valid point; the market is controlled by factors above and beyond actual demand, so we are left with the fact of food, thrown away from shops and supermarkets. "Joe Public" is given every possible combination of sauces and mixes with fish or chicken, etc .... what has happened to actually preparing and cooking it at home? I have seen the amount of fish wasted in outlets. As to how much I could not hazard a guess;
I am at the moment trying to find a figure for the actual amount of fish dumped at sea.


----------



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

I seem to have stirred up some feeling when I started this thread. 
I will not comment on politicians as this was not the idea of the thread. 
The EU I believe does have a lot to answer for in this regard. However other members of the community have or seem to have far more clout and are obviously better at keeping their respective fishing fleets in work. This is because they are nationalistic which the UK is not. Maybe that is not strictly true , because of PC we are not allowed to be. 
I am fortunate in that I see both sides of the EU having a home in Spain and UK. The infra structure in Spain is fabulous and new hospitals roads etc shooting up due to the EU.
Back to fish. In Spain we have a huge abundance of good quality and relatively cheap fish. To see the fish counter in the local shops and supermarkets is a delight to us. Being great fish eaters. Our local Sainsburys here is a very sad looking sight and the prices are just fantastic! 
I do like the sound of the artificial reefs, but this would not help the deep sea areas. Maybe there should be periods when certain areas are closed to fishing, to allow stocks to grow. That of course means more policing by the FPV'S and Watchdog aircraft, or does this already happen?
So fish quotas are being traded like farm milk quotas!
What do any of our fishing colleagues think?
Regards
Hawkey01 (Read)


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Article in The Cornishman Newspaper ...
http://www.newlyn.info/cornishman/2003/030814e.htm

and various quotes ….
"Who knows what the correct figures of fish stocks are. It is a real shame that this practice of discarding fish has to happen because it is a waste of a valuable resource. The industry is already struggling to survive and the dumped fish would better serve fishermen if they could land at a fish market and sold on." “The dumping will cause further marine pollution and is a completely unsustainable solution to the problem.” "The EC (European Commission) passed a directive back in 2002 to protect marine environments against pollution. I don't think you can class tonnes of dead fish as anything other than pollution". “No one should be allowed to dump dead fish back in the ocean. We don't allow dairy farmers in the Fraser Valley to dump dead cows in the Fraser River”. “225,000 tonnes of dead fish dumped in Mediterranean annually.” “The discarded fish pollutes the water and the seabed and robs crews of three quarters of their earnings. The South-West's 50 beam trawlers dump up to half a ton of monkfish on each of the 40 trips to sea they make a year. Over a year, some 600 tons are dumped, valued at £9 million on London fishmongers' slabs.”


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

A better system would maybe to allow each certificated Fishing boat a limited time when they are actually allowed to fish, not days at sea time but actual net in water time, some sort of black box to monitor gear and fishing time, this with strict regulations on net mesh size would mean that all fish caught legally could be landed, the better skippers would catch more as used to happen years ago. The net in water time could be reveiwed from time to time to conserve stocks and no dead fish would need to be discarded.


----------



## rushie (Jul 5, 2005)

Surely a better opion would be to not let Spanish fishing vessels to be allowed to registered in places such as Newlyn, therefore allowing them fishing rights within UK protected waters....whilst the EU still ban UK registered vessels from being registered in places like Santander...and gain the rights to Spanish fishing grounds (which have been over-fished and there aren't any left, hence the return of the Spanish Armada to our shores)...seems rather favourable towards one country to me....this is another example of where the EU sucks....

Iceland had the right idea in the infamous "Cod War"...go out there and protect what is yours..!....and ram them anyway....


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

"If the Dons sight Devon then I'll quit the port of Heaven;
And we'll drum them up the channel as we drummed them years ago"

Drakes Drum by Sir Henry Newbolt


----------



## rushie (Jul 5, 2005)

Very impressive John.!

Living in Devon...I'll be quite happy to go out there and beat some drums too..!


----------



## Frank P (Mar 13, 2005)

Jeff Egan said:


> I believe the main winners in the expanded EU are multinational companies who see the Eastwards expansion as means of flooding the market with cheap labour to the detriment of the population of Western Europe.


Jeff, I agree with the above statement.

Getting back to the fishing. What about the more than occasional fishing boat sneaking into certain small harbours around our coast, to unload their illegal fish. 
I am quoting my friend the fishing boat skipper.

Frank


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Even sink the foreign fishing fleets to form an artificial reef, all around Britain, thereby solving two situations at once (*)) ...
Just Joking!!


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

I am please to see that jocular comments are acceptable Treeve. I was afraid that some of my light hearted comments were taken too seriously.

John Trem


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

John Tremelling said:


> "If the Dons sight Devon then I'll quit the port of Heaven;
> And we'll drum them up the channel as we drummed them years ago"
> 
> Drakes Drum by Sir Henry Newbolt


Some years ago a replica of Drakes Drum was being banged long and hard here in Brixham as a protest against EU fishing policy - if the EU policy is ever going to be fair to our fishermen there is still a lot more banging to be done as yet!
Peter4447


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

re,fish quota's,i take this is from a thai newspaper,if there is so much dumping of fish from EU,"the country has exported frozen fish and shrimp worth TK 32.5 billion to the EU countrys in the last fiscal year,which surpassed all previous records of frozen food export,sources said


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Dom, you asked about waste from outlets .....
http://www.energybulletin.net/5350.html
The British may waste more food than any other nation, throwing out 30-40% of all the produce they buy and grow each year, according to research. Figures collated from the government, supermarkets, processors and farmers show that modern food production methods may appear efficient, "but the reality is that large-scale manufacturing and rigid supply chains are creating very significant quantities of waste". "The food sector now accounts for over a third of all the waste produced in the UK, a total of 17m tonnes," says the research, by C-Tech Innovation, a manufacturing consultancy. "About 15% arises from food manufacturing and a further 21% from distribution, retailing and consumption." The figure of 21% is disputed by some supermarkets, and in some cases, they operate a charity take-up, where food which would have gone to waste is taken to the needy.

On top of the fish dumped due to Quotas being exceeded, there is
the Discard due to size or weight limitations .....
A discussion on Discard at ...
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W6602E/w6602E11.htm

From DEFRA and CEFAS
1997 between 31,000 and 35,000 tonnes of cod, 52,000 tonnes of haddock and 17,000 tonnes of whiting were discarded. When comparing these to the UK TACs in the North Sea, this suggests that the equivalent of 25% by weight of the total North Sea cod TAC, 45% haddock and 28% of the whiting
TAC was discarded. No suitable data on the English fleet is available from CEFAS for 1999, but a new international discards programme involving CEFAS should provide data with a higher degree of confidence in future. The majority of discards in the North Sea are undersized fish. The proportion of cod discarded in 1997 that was undersized was 82%, haddock 57% and whiting 67% by number. By weight the percentages were cod 73%, haddock 46% and whiting 53%.7.

I am trying to get more up to date information, but the above looks quite frightening.


----------



## John Tremelling (Aug 1, 2006)

Frightening Treeve, I'd call it CRIMINAL.

Good work getting such info.

John Trem


----------



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

Treeve
those figures are absolutely staggering. How can we be conserving the fish stocks if this amount of wastage is taking place. 
Hawkey01 (Cloud)


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

So ... "we" are catching fish, throwing back dead over-quota fish, throwing back dead undersized fish, throwing back dead fish of the wrong species, bringing back more fish than can be sold. In the process "we" are poisoning spawning grounds and scraping off the sea bed of its natural food-chain base.
I am writing to a number of authorities for their statistics and viewpoint, but bearing in mind what I have already said about bureaucracy, I doubt I will get an unclouded reply, or even a reply at all. But, I am hopeful that I can be proved wrong. What we need are more reefs like the Oriskany, something really solid and spacious ....


----------



## Peter Dryden (Apr 14, 2006)

Can you imagine what would happen to the price of fish to the consumer if all this went to market.
Thinking of the "Butter Mountain" and the "Wine Lake" maybe this is the way of keeping the price of fish artificialy high.
Or is that I am just an old cynic?


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

I doubt the discarded dead fish are a pollution hazard, there are any number of creatures that will dispose of them not least other fish.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Not a case of anyone being cynical, it is a matter of realities for the fishing community; they have their livelihoods at stake - I FULLY understand their predicament and in ensuring a good return for their bravery and dangerous work; where my own concern lies is in the depletion of stocks ( and I mean the lives of fish, here ) at a faster rate than can be replenished by nature.
There is such a multiplicity of life in the oceans and it is all interdependent; upset that balance and chain; and who knows what the results may be?

As far as I am aware, and I stand ready to be corrected by anyone who knows otherwise, the majority of a catch, despite being "wrong species" "undersized" or "over quota" is saleable and edible, if landed, so perhaps it could be landed, as part of the Quota, as perhaps a transfer. 
It does not make sense to me to throw back a dead fish if it is below a specified size - it does nothing for the fish stocks. Lets face it, if you were a halibut, would you like to live in a bedsit filled with dead cod? This layer of dead fish covers the base vegetation and kills that off as well.

As I said, i have asked for opinions from Authorities, and I do not intend stopping there .....


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

treeve nothing will lie uneaten on the sea bed for very long, crabs, lobsters, prawns to name just a few are very efficient at cleaning up scraps even tonnes of scraps, not that I agree with throwing good fish back into the sea, but it will not lie rotting it will be devoured very quickly.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Quite right, Jeff ... mostly nephrops ( scampi ), apparently, but they can only eat so much, and this is something being approached by some communities in pressuring "the government" to make more research into just how much can be considered detrimental, and how much beneficial, and to which species.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Greenpeace marine biologist Thomas Henningsen. 
"Some 700,000 tons of dead fish are thrown back into the sea each year - this waste problem will affect future generations if no one takes action"

The other problem that has been brought to my attention is that of some endangered species are being trawled as a bycatch, and because they cannot be landed, they are dumped back in the sea, for the most part, dead.
Very often this can be as much as 90% of the catch.


----------



## OAK LEAF (Feb 25, 2006)

treeve said:


> Greenpeace marine biologist Thomas Henningsen.
> "Some 700,000 tons of dead fish are thrown back into the sea each year - this waste problem will affect future generations if no one takes action"
> 
> The other problem that has been brought to my attention is that of some endangered species are being trawled as a bycatch, and because they cannot be landed, they are dumped back in the sea, for the most part, dead.
> Very often this can be as much as 90% of the catch.



Treeve Copied and pasted from google

"Ancient forests are a global issue and can only be saved through global co-operation. said Thomas Henningsen, Greenpeace Forests Campaigner. ...
www.paradiseforest.org/media_detail.php?site_id=39&news_id=607 - 13k - "


Please be aware Greenpeace are a bunch of do-gooders with no credibility and are a danger to normal human beings. Henningson is a campaigner for anything except work.


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

It may be a naive question, but why are fish dead when landed?. When I go fishing, I throw undersized fish back to grow. And when caught in nets, the fish is still alive. Is modern fishing so intense, that fish are killed before landed or mesh so small, it lands everything?. 

I live in the countryside with farms all around me. Farming methods have changed dramatically since I was young. I worked on a few before I emigrated. In those days, every farm in my area had milking herds. Now, there are none. Supermarkets were selling milk cheaper than they could produce it. Some changed to beef. Now, there are only two with one of those having to seed fields down to turf to makes ends meet. Others changed to corn and other produce. The farmer who owns the fields either side of me changed to corn, but EU rules are so tight, it is not worth his while. Producing the perfect product by spraying constantly, and goodness what else including hoping for good weather when sewing, growing and harvesting mean that a farmer sells the corn for less than it cost him to grow it just as when he had a miking herd. He could lose the entire field if it does not meet required standards which at one time would have been acceptable. Now, nothing short of perfection is tolerated. So this farmer like others is looking for other ways of making money. He is opening camp sites on his land, whilst others are turning working barns into up market housing. Where hay was once stored, people are now watching TV. And where hens once laid free range eggs, the woman of the house is hanging out her washing.

Supermarkets and our quest for perfection is killing producers, smaller shops, and will eventually kill supermarkets because producers will not be able to produce either having gone bust, or their land used for something else. I am not knocking the EU or politicians or indeed supermarkets. Just stating fact. Something must change otherwise there will be no food for future generations from land or sea. David


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

OAK LEAF said:


> Please be aware Greenpeace are a bunch of do-gooders with no credibility and are a danger to normal human beings. Henningson is a campaigner for anything except work.


Just the kind of response I wanted to elicit, Oak Leaf. However, as much as I feel like agreeing with you, there are some very good results that have come from GreenPeace, and they are now making what I consider to be some intelligent proposals for Sea Reserves in the Baltic and North Sea. This used to happen around the table of 26 at some meetings I was on, everyone banging on about what is wrong, but no radical workable proposals. I feel that GreenPeace so often does that, a lot of banging but no radical solutions.
So, nice one Oak Leaf, thank you .. (*))


----------



## Jeff Egan (Jul 25, 2005)

David, in many cases bottom feeding fish such as cod when brought to the surface suffer damage to their swim bladders which burst and this alone will kill them, then there is crush as the net is lifted out of the water, some may appear to be alive but once returned will not last long.


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

Thanks for that Jeff. I have never caught a cod in all my years of fishing, I don't think we get too many down our way. The crew on Arcadia was catching some big fish many years ago down aft when anchored in Glacier Bay. I think they were hake. I think the Indian crew put them in their curry pot which used to waft through my air condition in my cabin which was just above their deck. I like curry, but not waking up to the smell in the morning especially with a hangover?!!. David


----------



## Peter Dryden (Apr 14, 2006)

Fish depending upon what type of nets are used will suffocate as they need to be swimming to ensure a good supply of oxygenated water flows across their gills.
Talking about seabed scavengers, I can remember a natural history programme shown some years ago on television here in the UK. Where it showed a species of flesh eating worm that exist in the mud/sand on the seabed, who scent rotten/decaying flesh on the ocean current and will gravitate towards the cadaver. Within a hour of the corpse coming to rest on the bottom it was covered in these worms. Gruesome it may be, but I suppose this is natures way of keeping the environment clean.
When we look at the disasters that have befallen this Earth, some natural, some man-made, it never ceases to amaze how given time nature seems to recover and it is as if nothing ever occured.

Peter.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks, Peter, another piece to the jigsaw;
trouble is, as Oak Leaf pointed out, and I have already said as much,
statistics and information can be presented in such a way as to give
a false impression; it's all very well talking about 700,000 tons of fish
being dumped, but where does this figure come from, over what area, &c.

I have had a good response from DEFRA, who have offered sources for
information, which I am following up ... more replies soon from others,
I hope.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Whilst not condoning the waste of life and stocks; I thought it might
be an interesting exercise to actually calculate the degree of "pollution"
which is being claimed. Taking the figure of 700,000 tons for the sake
of argument, and calculating the area of continental shelf in relation
to the world continental shelf, and spreading the UK portion of wasted fish over the entire area of the UK continental shelf, that works out as ( using
800kg/cu metre as the density of fish ), I get around 28 kg/sq kilometre 
sea bed. In other words about 0.4 mm thickness of dead fish material.
Quite minimal, especially given the appetite of the nephrops, crabs and
these worms of which Peter has spoken. Our UK continental shelf
is 522,639 sq km, by the way.


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Originally Posted by OAK LEAF
Please be aware Greenpeace are a bunch of do-gooders with no credibility and are a danger to normal human beings. Henningson is a campaigner for anything except work.

I fully agree with your sttement. We get pestered by these people on my present project installing Wind Turbines Offshore Holland. Their first excuse was it would deplete the fish stocks yet since we placed the foundations the number of fish swimming about have dramatically increased. Their second excuse was pollution - what aload of b------s they create more pollution in the zodiacs that buzz around and now their latest its an eyesore - what do these people want, the world needs energy and this is a safe and efficent way to get it.These people need to get a life.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Quite agree, Gdynia .... actually, wind farms, visually, are a moving
sculpture; and besides which, nature has a way of making adjustments
and then moves in later, in these cases; One of the greatest concentrations
of bird and animal life, let alone the insects, is on the routes of railway
lines. 
I have fast come to believe that these cries of pollution are a polluting
smoke screen to the realities.


----------

