Down the Pan

[bobshotter]

I would like to make a couple of points here if I may; as an active sea angler I agree with much of what you say but I do struggle with a few things.

While it’s true WSF can boast 73.5 thousand membership, the inactive numbers reduce this by a huge amount even more so when it comes to the Conservation and Politics section that is only available to members and let’s face it that is not the first or even last port of call for the vast majority of the sites members.

M T jnr has made the point on more than one occasion that the C+P section is used to keep the more popular parts of the site free from argumentative debate indeed that is how I found it myself in the first place. The welcome was both memorable and clear from the outset. my thread about seals as I recall was moved from the south west forum to C+P and any chance of debate was stifled with stupid remarks, YouTube links and daft pictures along with off topic conversations. Quite why I stayed I don’t know but I saw it as a challenge, after all as Nick said this is the most popular of all sea angling forums.

There was IMPO a lot wrong with the Angling Trust at the time and as a result I did fall in with some of them but formed the opinion that slating the AT was of no value unless you did something about it and that is exactly what I did.

My biggest mistakes was to take Mr Luxton on as a partner and suck up to the likes of Copollo and McCully. Luxton it turned out is far from being bright, Copollo a failed member of the old Kent and Essex Sea Fishery Authority and McCully was unable to hold a position on the AT marine committee.

Meanwhile it became clear that WSF was being orchestrated by the Scallop king and an unhealthy amount of Scottish influence and nothing has changed.

Yes they have a particular loathing for Professor Cullum Roberts because of his pro conservation credentials and the likes of HFW who did more to bring discarding to an end than any politician has. It is true that these Professors have differing views indeed only last week Prof Roberts went head to head with Prof Hillborn on an internet debate (sorry can’t find the link at present) but do we see these types of adult debate on WSF? Not on your life do we.

I feel Nick has a point the site is being used to prevent unity among sea anglers and the boss is too dumb to either see it or care. He like so many sea anglers seems to have very little interest in the future of sea angling or it’s politics which is rather strange given the real purpose of WSF is a retail outlet for angling products, it is either that or he lacks the balls to open the site up to all views and real debate, it is it seems far better to ban anyone who causes discord.

However this is not the real problem we the British have become one of the most apathetic of all European people, we are it seems totally oblivious to much of what is going on and happy it seems to be screwed left right and centre. Try and get a handful of workers from the million or so sea anglers, well I have to say that is almost imposable and it can’t all be down to those on WSF; can it?

Like Nick I have now joined the AT as I see the org moving toward better relations with sea anglers they are trying but will the anglers see this? Sadly I don’t see it happening and all the while regulation is creeping in through the back door.

[bobshotter]

Found the link to the debate mentioned above >> openchannels.org/chat/online-debate-large-no-take-areas-their-total-environmental-impact-positive-or-negative

[Sunny]

I read most of the comments, before losing the will to live.

Good stuff to thik of from both professors. Holborn...what a man...its all just food (and a grant for the University from where ?). But, putting aside flippancy (me), lets just follow his logic. here are list of foods that we should be harvesting, if their carbon footrpint is low:

Giant panda (Co2 footprint very low, as we have most of them trapped already)
US Bald Eagle
Blue whales (tasty with chips)
Otters
Penguins (they can never run fast enough)
Dogs
Horses (the ones not already in burgers)
Cats (taste like chicken - apparently)
Elephants (huge steaks)

I'm sure the list can go on and on....thanks Prof Holborn for making us realise its all just food !


I noted the mention - in the debate - that the trade off could be ripping up the Amazon (again Prof Holborn). So do we decimate the seas in order to save the Amazon ?
With a population at 7 billion now and food production chugging along at risk....what happens when we reach 9 Billion (est 2050); with the Amazon be permitted to stay forrest or will it just get ploughed in ?

What happens when the population reaches 20 Billion ?
When the harvest is poor one year, as will happen, then in the 'undeveloped world' (sad term of expression) then it is likely that there will be mass death from starvation and cholera. If 500 million die that year will it matter ?
The very next year we would likely produce 400 million babies, so what the heck...should it matter ?

So if we turn the entire planet in to fields and deplete the seas of everything except plankton (which will need to be harvested; but should be impossible to irradicate, along with dogfish)...then that should be okay, according to Prof Holborn. It is all just food.

[theoldfart2]

Many years ago when I went to school, in my short trousers and duffle coat, the teachers told us about how the forests were being destroyed, and how the whales were being exterminated, or how the population was exploding, causing famine in Africa etc. 

But no one in really cared, why should they, there was nothing we could do about it, and it wasn't happening on the Isle of Wight.


I am afraid that attitude carried on through our lives, and now the list is endless about what is endangered or how the environment is about to collapse. We all know its going to happen, it has to. Resources are finite. 

But no government is going to do anything about it. It costs money, is unpopular with the voters , and does not win elections. Besides no one is interested. Most people in this country are far more concerned about who wins the 'X factor' than what state the planet will be in twenty years time.

When you sow the wind ,you reap the whirlwind, and not many people care that it is just starting to blow right now. 

[bobshotter]

Oh dear Nick Professor Ray Hilborn is a well-respected man and is listened to by among others our own UK HMG

He has presented factual evidence collated with/by many other leading scientist from around the world and I have to say makes Professor Roberts look like a bit of a beginner. Rather than use assumptions much of his work is backed by masses of data and he was not suggesting we eat from the list you provided either. The key to the whole thing is ‘SUSTAINABILITY’ you can only take what nature can replace and that is what Hilborn has and is saying.

[iknowagoodplaice]

Well, I'm not sure it was a particularly useful discussion. It seems both are arguing for better fisheries management - which is easy enough to agree to - but CR thinks we should have no take zones, whereas RH thinks not. RH is coming at the topic from an economic and management viewpoint: CR is more interested in conservation and tends to what used to be called a precautionary approach.

Personally I like the idea of no-take areas in places lightly fished to protect them in future. But I like even better the idea of no take in areas currently heavily fished, especially around the British Isles. Didn't see that suggested.

[bobshotter]

The UK has one no-take area that being Lundy, to date there are no positives for the fish population therein.

All that is achieved by closed areas is to shift effort to other areas that more than likely have an existing effort.

Surely it is better to manage properly heavily fished areas rather than close areas that have little effort?

[snoopy54]

Australia,New Zealand and the USA have got it right - why the Hell cant we???

[iknowagoodplaice]

Oct 16, 2013 9:16:16 GMT bobshotter said:

The UK has one no-take area that being Lundy, to date there are no positives for the fish population therein.

All that is achieved by closed areas is to shift effort to other areas that more than likely have an existing effort.

Surely it is better to manage properly heavily fished areas rather than close areas that have little effort?

As I understand, the commercial fishing around Lundy was mainly potting, and monitoring shows a big increase in the lobster population, so there is clearly a benefit. I can see the advantage of NTZs in that they are refuge for fish, provided they're well chosen. Everywhere that there are fish and suitable ground round the British Isles is heavily fished. It makes sense to stop fishing some areas and tightly control fishing effort elsewhere.

[theoldfart2]

The answer to Snoopys question is simple.

Those three country's arnt in Bloody Europe. We gave away all our fishing rights when we joined, no matter what excuses, or arguments are put forward saying different.

Glad I started this thread, it seems to have hit a nerve and got people writing on the forum.

Nice to see it!

[Sunny]

I'm not convinced by the displacement 'scare tactic'. Surely they can allocate TAC to zones, as they do right now today and if you close one zone then it means closed a part of the TAC...simples !

So there is no displacement. The Commercials have to find other work, the same as everyone else does when their work dries up. A bricklayer who finds that there are no longer any building projects in a town moves to the next town....its life get on with it. Why is that commercial fishermen see themselves as anything different to bricklayers or car manufacturing staff...or any other profession.

If the seas are to be truly sustainable then you close areas (of ocean)and eat something else. Worrying about carbon footprint of food is no excuse for extermination of the seas.

How about this...tax on fish....a really heavy tax, like they have on alcohol and petrol....no bugger would then eat fish. If you make fish a cheap protein then it will get hammered and uncontrolled species will get literally exterminated.

Bob, I thank you for your observations and you are most likely right in all respects...however, RH does not have my respect if he thinks that fish are simply 'carbon-footprint low' sources of food; and hense my comments :0)
It may be persausive to some, including the UK HMG (for all their faults), but I can see the obvious benefits of stopping a damaging activity in an area; provided it is not allowed to create displacement. And as i have said preventing displacement is a doddle

TOF....glad to see that you are happy with the results of your seeds :0)

[tomstevo]

Lamlash Bay No Take zone Scotland

This is situated in one of the most degraded marine environments in the UK The Firth of Clyde.
The interesting thing about this it was brought about by locals demanding action because the damaged being caused.
The results even after short period look very encouraging.

[Sunny]

Oct 16, 2013 19:52:24 GMT tomstevo said:

Lamlash Bay No Take zone Scotland

This is situated in one of the most degraded marine environments in the UK The Firth of Clyde.
The interesting thing about this it was brought about by locals demanding action because the damaged being caused.
The results even after short period look very encouraging.

That is very encouraging, especially as closure on the Grand Banks did not bring about instant recovery of the Cod.

Eco-systems are complex beasties and even when left to recover they don't always produce the results we desire. Lets all hope that The Firth of Clyde does well and is seen as a model to other areas of Scotland and the wider UK.

[bobshotter]

Understanding the results of over fishing and recovery

This is not meant to be a patronising post I just hope it helps to simplify and give a better understand how we got to the situation mentioned by Nick re the Grand Banks, the following then is a nothing more than a very simple explanation;

Imagine a bucket full of water (The water represents the fish stock of the Newfoundland Cod species at max yield.) In to the bucket is a flow of water from a tap representing the reproduced fish, the overspill being the natural mortality from old age right down to the eggs being eaten (zero effort)............. You take a thimble, which represents the first local fishermen working the area and this will represent their effort; you start to empty the bucket, but no matter how hard you try there is no change in the water level in the bucket, it remains full (In other words the effort is ‘Sustainable.’)
You then take a small cup representing more fishermen who have heard of the rich pickings again you start to empty the bucket....... still you can’t beat that flow from the tap (Still Sustainable) ........... Next you then take a large mug and start to empty the bucket representing the very first of the trawlers.... now you can just about match the flow into the bucket and very, very slowly start to empty it (Overfishing begins but this could and will be argued as being sustainable) ....... Now add a second mug representing yet more and bigger boats and the bucket starts to empty more quickly, at the same time resulting in a reduction of flow from the tap!!!!(Obvious overfishing)…………. At some point down the line you will almost empty the bucket making the mugs all but useless (This is known as a stock collapse.)

That gentlemen is what happened on the Grand Banks and here comes the science. The fish that are left will one would think would simply replenish the stock eventually, but other factors now come into play. First of all the remaining fish will be made up of a larger amount of juveniles and small fish produce both less offspring but more importantly that offspring will rarely grow any bigger that the parent at the time of copulation.

At the same time the lack of predators changes the balance of the food chain, this will result in many things like the prawn population  as one example, they will now flourish and they will now be feeding on the spawn from the Cod, as they always have but the impact now will be far greater, prey becomes predator. The same thing happens further up the food chain because of this imbalance thus recovery will take many more years than one might think and it is entirely possible that the stock may never recover.

Having said that I can see no justification in closing areas on a whim, management is key, the stock needs to be protected from overfishing and subsidisation by the likes of the EU needs to stop. The thing is there is no political will; our Bass stock in the English Channel being a prime example.

The French wanting to look good say let’s have a TAC as long as they get far more than anyone else and more than is sustainable, simply because they have hammered the stock year on year. The British cry foul and with no agreement the devastating impact continues.

One last but very important point and that is don’t be fooled by talk of the stock appearing to be healthy because records show that is exactly what happened in Newfoundland and in the Baltic right before a sudden collapse of the Cod stocks.

[iknowagoodplaice]

The Newfoundland cod collapse happened because of the industrial fishing we see around our coast. And the reason there has been no recovery, so I understand, is the destruction of the ecology due to bycatch, and now the dominance of lobsters, which prevent the cod reestablishing. So, allow things to go too far and we may be in the same position. Very few cod being caught off the beaches on the south coast now.

I don't see the EU as the fundamental problem; that is the insistence of commercials to carry on fishing to the end. The EU fisheries policy has failed, it's true, but that is down to the power of the commercial lobby to persuade govts to ignore the fisheries policy, as well as the policy not being very good in the first place.