Maverick Martin Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.p..._priority_.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy fred Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Sounds like a good idea but the last politition with a good idea ended up on big brother wearing a pink leotard! looking like a retard LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afishionado Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I am going to be a right Joanah about this. Back in the early 90's Col Oliver North (remember him) warned a Congressional committee in the USA that Osama bin Laden was the most dangerous man in the world and terrorism was the greates danger to the world. Of couse no one listened to a thing as vital as the security of nations and we ended up where we are today. So too will be the story of our fish, dolphin. porpoise, and marine eco systems. Serious and knowledgeable prophets of the future of life in our seas will be ignored. Vested interest in the fishing industries of Europe will ensure that the dwindling stocks of fish are hunted into extinction. We allow huge Russian factory ships to vacuume up billions of fish eradicating whole breeding shoals from waters in our Western Approaches. Yet our 'Territorial Waters' are allowed by our Eurosidal politicians to remain at a distance that has no relationship to the natural cycle of the fish in British waters. The Icelanders have the right idea (who remembers The Cod War? Yes realy) Their territorial waters which they fought hard for now extend hundreds of miles to sea and encompass their fishes breeding grounds. I'll make a prophesy... Before we see our government realy do anything about our fish stocks and have the balls to set our own international limits, they will limit sports fishing as though we are the main culprits and the anti blood sports fanatics will pave the path of that course of action. Mad Mike PS For Sam.... Re you and the Navy and a bit of history... Look up the Cod War between Britain and Iceland that took place in the 1960's. It was fought on our side by the Royal Navy and got quite hairy at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Mike, The good lady brought me home a video on fishing,she spotted in the local chatity shop...."Postcards from the Country..The Fishermans Tale." Cover shows a Fly fisherman,but fishing is fishing,so I watched it. The main theme centred on the river Tweed and the Salmon fishing.But the whole was a brief history of fishing in the Shetlands and the Borders. It covered the Hayday and decline of the herring industry. How bloody lunatic and depressing can non-conservation get ?.And the worst aspect is with all these records and information available we {the government ] have learned NOTHING....... Not very often I feel depressed,but its tempting. jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great white Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I was watching a program about the Salmon fishing on the tweed last week and due to some expensive measures being implimented over many years and a catch and release policy it is returning to good fishing. We all need to do what we can to badger the politicians into somthing to help us retain our sport It would need driving very hard, be hard to set up and would cost us all, but I am sure it would be worth it Charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newboy Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would think a limit on each species of fish caught would be fairly simple and cheap to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great white Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Not the cost to Implement but to police Charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afishionado Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Most people including the politicians do not understand the problem of applying quotas. They think that a simple limit on the number of tons of a certain species over a certain size limit caught will do it. What they fail in their ignorance to realise are the VAST numbers of small fish and other species fish already at quota that are thrown back dead. The policing is only concearned with the size and quantity of fish landed. NOT THE TOTAL DESTRUCTIVE POWER OF THE TRAWL. Imagin say an inshore trawl for sole. The cod end comes aboard weighing say 3cwt gross, it contains say 50lb of sizable sole, the rest containing small fish, immature fish all dead, weed and stone is dumped back into the sea. So do the math 336lb gross less 50lb of sizable fish in quota and the best part of 200lb of dead fish fry and bait fish from the food chain put back in dead. WE DO NOT NEED QUOTAS!! We need to stop commercial trawling and beam trawling in specific breeding and other waters completely and for several years too. We need to stop factory vacuume fishing ships out of the Western Approaches for a period of years too. It is a fact that during the war years (only 5 years) when trawling in British waters was too dangerous due to enemy action and our own mine fields fish stocks increased dramaticaly. A five year moritorium on commercial fishing would be a start. Mad Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 have to agree with Mike again (is that 3 and out?) quotas are not the answer, and for most trawls mesh size is a joke too - what we need are no go areas for trawls and nets (indiscriminate fishing methods). These can lie with us - the EU issue is valid but we can start effectively at home - and these should be banned within 2 miles of shore. Simple as that. Add to that a ban on harvesting for fish meal and you should take care of both the fry (early) stages of many species and their food supply in later life. Economic impact should be minimal - sand eel fisheries are mariginal economically anyway relying on local economic aid from time to time and the (for example) soles you would loose from this area would be replaced by increased stocks further out anyway. For our part I would suggest that returning all female bream in the spring should be second nature.............it's the only real impact the leisure angler is likely to have as part of the wider picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afishionado Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Duncan says.....have to agree with Mike again (is that 3 and out?) Mike answers..... All the world is mad except for me and thee And I some times worry about thee too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam F Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I completely agree 100% with the posts above (Mike and Duncan) however at the risk of recievng a baracking and purely playing devils advocate to understand the situation.... What happens to the whole commercial fishing industry, jobs and the picture of the situation to the non-angler when a 5 year complete ban, or huge non-fishing zones are implimented? I appreciate this is a hugely emotional and political subject - just wondered your comments on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueboatdriver Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 You would get differing answers depending on which part of the country you came from. For exampe; ask in the North of Scotland where fishing is a large part of their industry and I think you'll know what your answer will be. Even not so many miles to the west of us commercial fishing is an important part of peoples' lives. It is worth a thought before we try to ban commercial fishing completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afishionado Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 You would get differing answers depending on which part of the country you came from. For exampe; ask in the North of Scotland where fishing is a large part of their industry and I think you'll know what your answer will be. Even not so many miles to the west of us commercial fishing is an important part of peoples' lives. It is worth a thought before we try to ban commercial fishing completely. This is the nettle that is not being grasped. So what do the commercial fishermen want to do? Go on fishing ever decreasing shoals of fish until they loose their jobs through attritionand there are hardly any fish left ? Or find other employment now, as hundreds of thousands of others have done as their industries have had to change with the times, and have strong and viable fish stocks in the future for their decendants to fish. Like the Luddites of old who smashed machinery in an attempt to keep their jobs one has to adopt to what is fact. The commercial fishermen can not keep bleating about their livelihoods as an excuse for eradicating inshore fish and habitat. Mad Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul D Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Exactly Mike. Take a look at the Grand Banks. It was one of the world's ( if not THE worlds ) biggest cod fishery. The commerical fishing of this area decimated the cod stocks to the degree that that are virtually extinct in the Grand Banks. The commercials went out of business as it was not economically viable. I have a very interesting book on Cod and the history of cod fishing if anyone is interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afishionado Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Paul boasts.......I have a very interesting book on Cod and the history of cod fishing if anyone is interested. Well you heard it from the man himself folks. If you want to get your hands on Pauls cod piece just give him shout Mad Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Adam, As I was suggesting neither a total fishing ban nor a no take zone I am happy to respond.... My concerns are around indiscriminatory fishing and the damage to small fish etc by trawling specifically. Taking the west country first the primary inshore fishery (within 2 miles) is line caught bass - this should see benefits rather than losses. Netting sandeels would obviously be a rather difficult one............as sprats etc but both have been done before without the use of trawls, and could be again to signinificnat ecological advantage. Up North the inner couple of miles isn't the main fishery at all! Finally little that is netted in estuary's and harbours goes anywhere near the commercial books! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newboy Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Don't they badge the cornish handlined/caught bass?! Seem to remember in one of Rick Stein's programme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 yes - not just waet country though line caught has a much higher commercial value Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.