FISH FIGHT

[whitecrook]

mackeral bap looks nice




Anyone know what fish you get if you ask for fish and chips / fish supper in a typical glasgow scotish chippy ?

 

[The Halk]

Art, you're quoting me out of context. I meant you can't monitor what they do out there. You cannot stop them catching them by accident or due to lack of care, and just tossing the fish back in. So since you cannot prevent them catching the fish, you either financially reward them for it, or you don't. If you don't they go back in the sea. There's no other way at the moment. And if you do financially reward them then you encourage them to fish the fish we don't want fished.

I don't know what Dolphin Safe means, I only see Dolphin Friendly or caught with a rod and line.

 

[Glaucus]

All you do Is split the fleet into x-number of sub fleets all with equal trawling capacity. You then give each of these sub fleets certain times to fish, any discard results in huge fines/penalties. Obviusly fishing times and trawler capacity needs to be scientifically calculated. I don't see it as a huge problem, it just needs a lot of data and highly thought over and written.

 

[Art]

Art, you're quoting me out of context. I meant you can't monitor what they do out there.

I wasn't trying to do that. The point I was making was that using the current methods of fishing a crew can't specifically target one species of fish: as one of the skipper said he can't put a sign outside his net saying "no cod today please" because he's over his quota. So either they've got to completely retool their methods so that they only catch a specific species with a limit on how much they can catch a year and have random spot inspections/massive penalties for deliberately catching more of a species than they are allowed, or you have a system which lets them land what they can of any species for a small period of the year.

I don't know what Dolphin Safe means, I only see Dolphin Friendly or caught with a rod and line.

Which I think is kind of the problem: it's not very well defined. People can pretty fairly assume that "dolphin safe/friendly" means no dolphins were harmed, but the suggestion is that that's not always true in practice, so they shouldn't be allowed to label it that way.

I don't remember him suggesting that rod caught was a problem.

 

[Ceryndrion]

Most fishermen, will not throw back fish that they have caught, just because they'll not be paid for it, in fact, in some areas of the country, there were ways of landing black fish, that meant that communities were not completely destroyed by the introduction of quotas, and in some aspects, there was quite a good industry supplying fresh fish to the rigs of the north sea oil fields.

When I was growing up, it was quite common to see a couple of large trawlers, that usually offloaded in peterhead, come steaming in on the late tide, be met by a few refridgerated trucks, and be offloaded and out to sea again before the tide turned. Sometimes this was what made the difference between boats staying working, or being left to rust. And with the cost of the boats themselves, running costs, and the crew costs, let alone processing etc, its not like people are in it to make a lot of money.

It is a no-win situation, but at the same time, how accurate are the 'scientific' figures for the levels of fish stocks if most vessels are dumping more than 50% of every catch?

 

[Ceryndrion]

Limited time, or 'derby' fishing as it is known, is a very dangerous way of fishing, as crews will take unnecessary risks in order to load as much fish onto their vessels as possible in as short a time as possible. This often can result in overloading and lost crews.

There has to be a lot more safeguards put into place before that happens.

I dont have the answers, personally I would like to see the fishing fleets restricted by number of vessels, not by the amount that they are allowed to catch.

 

[The Halk]

I wasn't trying to do that. The point I was making was that using the current methods of fishing a crew can't specifically target one species of fish: as one of the skipper said he can't put a sign outside his net saying "no cod today please" because he's over his quota. So either they've got to completely retool their methods so that they only catch a specific species with a limit on how much they can catch a year and have random spot inspections/massive penalties for deliberately catching more of a species than they are allowed, or you have a system which lets them land what they can of any species for a small period of the year.

Which I think is kind of the problem: it's not very well defined. People can pretty fairly assume that "dolphin safe/friendly" means no dolphins were harmed, but the suggestion is that that's not always true in practice, so they shouldn't be allowed to label it that way.

I don't remember him suggesting that rod caught was a problem.

I wouldn't believe that skipper. I've seen a documentary series (it was some time back) where they said they cannot be exact, but they can more or less avoid certain fish, and increase the chances of catching other fish. They didn't get it right all the time, but it was a skill.

I'd say that skipper is whining that he has to throw away fish, which is why he's lying/exaggerating about it. Everybody in any industry loves to bleat on about their industry has it toughest. Take it with a pinch of salt.

As for the Dolphin Safe/Dolphin Friendly. In the UK Dolphin Safe isn't a term. Dolphin Friendly is though and it means that they take steps to try to minimise any harm to dolphins. I'm content with that, and when I did a search after my last post I found my understanding matched reality.

I do not think limited time fishing is the best way.

I think retooling is a way forward - if they can't afford it stuff em. I don't care, someone else will retool and do it. Industries fade away and grow over time.

I also think restricting areas they can fish in may work - but lots of boats "accidentally" go to the wrong place. So that's going to be of limited worth.

I think though the best solution is to penalise and enhance the price of fish based on stocks. Fisherman can and will do what they can to limit catching the fish that give them a low profit. And if you use it to enhance the price of the fish you want them to catch then it'll work better. The market will ensure that talented boats will make far more money than talentless boats.

Overall though fisherman do not have a right to fish. Especially if it means fishing stocks far beyond the levels that are sustainable. If it's not profitable then find another industry. It's a shame if that's all they know, but that's all, a shame, not something requiring action. Loads of people are made redudant, why should fishermen get any special treatment.

 

[Glaucus]

That's down to them and any saftey regulation they need to adhere to. It is not a reason not to go down such a route, especially when many want to go this route.

 

[Ceryndrion]

I'm going to exit this thread now, before I say anything that I may regret later.

 

[The Halk]

Limited time, or 'derby' fishing as it is known, is a very dangerous way of fishing, as crews will take unnecessary risks in order to load as much fish onto their vessels as possible in as short a time as possible. This often can result in overloading and lost crews.

There has to be a lot more safeguards put into place before that happens.

I dont have the answers, personally I would like to see the fishing fleets restricted by number of vessels, not by the amount that they are allowed to catch.

I agree with you on the limited time "derby" fishing.

I don't agree on limiting the number of vessels. Because I think that would result in certain fish types being in abundance, and certain fish types still struggling. And when fish type stocks recover they will not recover to ideal levels.

I think the solution must like in making sure vessels catch the fish you want them to catch, and not the wrong fish. And the answer there is technology and financial pressure. You force a minimum standard of technology (no idea what that would be) and you put financial penalties and benefits on it (they should still be able to sell any fish caught at a profit. I'm not meaning they come back and get fined for more than they can sell the fish for, or that'd mean dumping).

And since the fishing policy is about to be redone by the EU. I've zero confidence in them at all, and we'll get a Eurovision contest style agreement instead of something that works. Get us out of the EU and we can run our own waters properly.

 

[Art]

I wouldn't believe that skipper.

Maybe true for smaller operations, but that doesn't seem to be the case for larger purse seining vessels. Seems they use fish aggregation devices to attract smaller fish which then attract larger fish which then attract tuna, etc., and they encircle the whole lot with a net. That means they'll get everything and just dump the stuff they aren't looking for, getting back to the issue of discarding ridiculous quantities of perfectly good fish.

Dolphin Friendly is though and it means that they take steps to try to minimise any harm to dolphins. I'm content with that, and when I did a search after my last post I found my understanding matched reality.

I don't think the level of leeway is very clearly put across to your average consumer. The responses from Tesco and the fishing company allegedly caught catching dolphins were a bit perplexing though. Tesco say they're changing their labels in the near future, and that the fish that vessel caught weren't destined for their tins, but they've still suspended trading with them pending an investigation, as if the vessel completely changes fishing methods when working for Tesco. The company said that they don't catch sharks or dolphins, but when they do they're released. What? You either do or you don't.

I think retooling is a way forward - if they can't afford it stuff em. I don't care, someone else will retool and do it. Industries fade away and grow over time.

I might agree with a bit more sympathy. It'd have to be an EU-wide thing, and that seems to be a nightmare to organise.

Overall though fisherman do not have a right to fish. Especially if it means fishing stocks far beyond the levels that are sustainable.

I'd wholly agree with that. Fish is good, it's helpful for feeding people and it's comparatively healthy, but it's senseless to industrially fish species to extinction.

 

[The Halk]

The thread actually has turned sensible, I'm not quite sure why Ceryndrion has picked now to leave it... we seem to have much less agreement.

As far as EU wide, you're right. That is the problem. Of course I'm sympathetic, but we can't let that override the need to do it. The problem with the EU is that all countries would have to agree to the retooling. Then what happens if some countries help their fishermen and some don't? Do you get British vessels with no help vs Spanish with lots of help so we end up with far less fishing going on?

If we manage fish stocks across the EU very well, then we'll have an abundance of fish that we will need as the population grows, and we'll be able to fish the absolute maximum year on year compared to what we have if we don't manage it.

Greenpeace though and the other environmental fascists behind these types of campaign want nothing short of no fish being eaten. They can disguise it how they like.

 

[Lopéz]

Greenpeace though and the other environmental fascists behind these types of campaign want nothing short of no fish being eaten. They can disguise it how they like.

The campaign figurehead for FishFight is a chef, a chef who cooks a lot of fish and has written books about cooking fish. I don't think he wants people to stop eating fish...

 

[Art]

The thread actually has turned sensible

I was thinking the same: internet discussion results in broad agreement on the general issues at hand. Shock, horror!

Unfortunately, if you can't get an EU-wide consensus there's little you can do without shafting your own fishermen with a policy which doesn't really work because nobody else is using it.

Greenpeace though and the other environmental fascists behind these types of campaign want nothing short of no fish being eaten. They can disguise it how they like.

Generally when I see Greenpeace/PETA/other similar group I just roll my eyes. There's so much nonsense in their work that it's hard to pick out the stuff that is actually valuable.

EDIT:

The campaign figurehead for FishFight is a chef, a chef who cooks a lot of fish and has written books about cooking fish. I don't think he wants people to stop eating fish...

True, and I'm glad Greenpeace played a small role in the series.

 

[The Halk]

The campaign figurehead for FishFight is a chef, a chef who cooks a lot of fish and has written books about cooking fish. I don't think he wants people to stop eating fish...

Equally though he's a high end chef. You say a lot of fish that's relative. He certainly doesn't cook trawler loads of fish, and he would not be adversely affected, if for example, all fish had to be caught by rod and line.

He should know better than to get involved with Greenpeace.

Someone backed by the BNP isn't going to get my ear when it comes to race relations. So someone backed by Greenpeace isn't going to get my ear when it comes to fishstock.

 

[Cleeecooo]

So why exactly does eu law make them throw the fish back?

 

[The Halk]

So why exactly does eu law make them throw the fish back?

The answer is already in this thread. In several places. Scroll up and read it.

 

[Lopéz]

So why exactly does eu law make them throw the fish back?

You are only allowed to catch a certain amount of fish during a year. If you catch more than this it cannot be brought ashore and sold. As a trawler net cannot catch a specific species of fish, you catch the fish you have already hit quota for whilst trying to catch other species. They must be thrown back - by which time they are dead anyway.

 

[Art]

So why exactly does eu law make them throw the fish back?

Using many current fishing methods, they have a bit of difficulty catching only one species of fish. They have set annual quotas, and above that they can't bring any more of that species ashore. So, if a crew has landed its quota of cod, goes fishing for tuna and ends up with a net with half a ton of both, they get to keep the tuna but have to dump the cod back in the sea because they're over their cod quota already. That's a lot of dead, wasted cod.

(Yeah alright, I'm guessing there are reason you won't get cod and tuna mixed up, but you get the point. They can't ensure that they only catch species A when they drag a big-ass net across the sea bed.)

The quotas were originally meant to limit the number of fish from a declining species being caught, but it hasn't worked out that way. They still catch them, they just dump them back in the sea once they've sorted them, and they're usually dead by then.

EDIT: ninjad. Need to type faster.

 

[The Halk]

I don't think that's accurate Lopez.

The EU law is there to try to preserve specific fishstocks which have been overfished. It stops fishermen from being paid for fish they aren't supposed to catch. There is no way to monitor what they do at sea, so the only thing that can be done is to control the equipment they use, control their ability to leave port/time they fish for, or make sure they can't gain financially by catching the wrong fish.

It's not an accepted fact that they have no control over what fish they catch.

Edit : To be more accurate. They have limited control over what they catch. Some people say no control, some people say they have a greater degree of control. The EU law depends on them having some level of control so that they do the most economically viable thing which is try to catch the right fish.

It isn't accurate to say that it hasn't worked. It certainly hasn't fixed the problem, but it may have prevented things being horribly worse than they are, it's very difficult to tell. They may catch less of them.

Fish in the EU is going to be an ever increasing problem because there is more and more pressure to fish more.