|
Post by jonjel on Jan 17, 2011 10:24:32 GMT 1
Now we have something of substance.
I absolutely agree with you on point 1. Everything caught should be landed, and if you couple that with a quota even better. But the quota should be for the total tonnage , whether that be prime fish or junk. It is pretty easy to see if fish is being dumped over the side - you don't need to be that close or alongside.
As for point 2, I can't see how you can return immature or egg bearing fish to the sea. Apart from a few species of flat fish they are dead in the nets, or die when you haul them because the swim bladders burst.
As for education and making government kitchens serve whiting or pollack for example, to most people it is just fish, and they either eat fish (as long as it is deep fried and covered in some sort of synthetic batter) or they don't.
The other thing I would do, and this applies to ALL food, is I would ban imports from any country where the rules on what you can feed the farmed fish and what chemicals can be introduced are not as stringent as our own.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 17, 2011 17:20:59 GMT 1
Point 2 was referring to selective methods of catching fish - gill nets, fish traps and to some extent long line.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 17, 2011 17:47:52 GMT 1
As I suspected after a fair and balanced first programme where fishermen proved cod were abundant, the reason for eco-extremist support is clear. The "message" during the rest of the series has been "fish stocks have been seriously depleted". All the footage and testimony of the fishermen was trumped by one statement from a "scientist". The rest of the series wholly followed his doctrine. The fact that the "scientist" was of the soft variety and his unequivocal statement was based on results from "models" similar to the climate models we know so well was never disclosed.
By the end of the series the lasting impression is of stupid fishermen dumping "endangered" fish over the side. Eco-"liars" 1 Reality 0
Yet again.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jan 18, 2011 11:18:22 GMT 1
You seem to want a foot in both camps Mr Smith. First you scoff at any science or survey data and totally disregard that, but as you have said above, you also want controls (landing everything caught etc.)
If there is not a problem, and there are 'plenty of fish in the sea' then why not just remove all the quotas and carry on dumping by-catch to our hearts content?
You seem to forget that our methods of catching fish have changed a bit over even the last 30 years and have become that much more efficient.
As for your idea that you can return live fish to the sea from long-line fishing, how much do you think will be alive after a few hours being towed at 3-4 knots?
If you want to label everyone who disagrees with you as an eco-loony so be it, but it strikes me that they can't all be wrong, nor do all of them have a hidden agenda.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 18, 2011 12:08:44 GMT 1
I have nothing but contempt for fisheries "science" and it never features in any of my thinking. I am a fisherman who hates to see anything wasted and despite the best efforts of our legislators, see a bright future for fishing. Under the CFP there has been an effective free for all since despite MLS and quota restrictions not one single fish has been saved. They have simply been caught, killed and dumped if they weren't marketable. Unbelievably, stocks remain healthy. Rather than dump the fish, they should be landed and eaten.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 18, 2011 12:10:58 GMT 1
I don't think you understand the art of long-lining. No "towing" takes place. The lines are set then after a few hours they are hauled again. It tends to be more selective with less by-catch and small fish.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jan 18, 2011 12:44:43 GMT 1
'I don't think you understand the art of long-lining. No "towing" takes place. The lines are set then after a few hours they are hauled again. It tends to be more selective with less by-catch and small fish. '
Not in every case, and fish caught are often dead on the end of the line. I have set low tide long lines myself in winter, though nothing approaching the thousands of hooks set commercially.
They have been banned in many areas of the world due to catching turtles albatross and other animals. If those could have been returned alive there would have been no need for the ban.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 18, 2011 17:11:39 GMT 1
We're heading down a bit of a non-story here but...... Longlining is more selective and less destructive than trawling. Fish can be targetted more accurately and hooks and baiting can be adjusted to discourage smaller fish. It's certainly not all of the answer but it's better than trawling.
I think the whole problem of trawling/discards/seabed damage will be resolved when fuel prices make it un-economic to have thousands of horsepower dragging nets about anyway. A trawler friend of mine recently complained his fuel bill had exceedeed £1 million for the year. Ouch!
|
|