Overfishing

Sport101

Why is it that the topic of overfhishing is rarely tackled by the mainstream media or by politicians? I for one am at a loss to explain this as the scientific evidence (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/)suggests that we are decimating our fish stocks by agreeing quotas that exceed sustainability levels and maintaining fishing fleets with capacity far greater than the remaining fish stocks.

IMO it should be relatively easy to enlighten a large percentage of the population about how eating fish such as cod and tuna (two of the fish at legitimate risk of extinction) in such large amounts are putting pressure on the fisheries to produce more of these fish and thus fish them to extinction. But why is it not done?

There is something seriously wrong with the fact that the two most readily available fish in supermarkets, shops, chip shops and restaurants, are indeed two of the more "endangered" species.

Some scientific research would suggest that we are down to 10% of our fish stocks, with many species having been wiped out. Of course govt. like the Japanese tend to ignore the obvious harm over fishing is causing and instead decide to blame the "over fishing" as they see it on the whales and dolphins, who they have not been allowed to butcher for a number of years, and thus are now looking for the whaling commission to allow them to resume whaling… what a joke.

The ocean is an incredible place, and for anyone who has ever dived or swam with ocean life, it should be a marvel for us to explore, not for us to harvest with no limits. Swimming with dolphins, rays, whales for anyone lucky enough to experience it is an amazing experience.

I am not involved with the following documentary but feel anyone with a social conscience should watch it to be aware of the scale of the problem that over fishing could present us with in years to come. (I apologise in advance for the fact you'll have to put up with Ted Danson narrating for an hour or so:)…but its worth it)

http://www.babelgum.com/endoftheline

As you will see from the documentary, as well as from any research you read online, fish farming is clearly no the answer either.

By the way, I am not advocating that we stop eating fish altogether, I just feel that we are ignoring a huge problem that could be dealt with relatively easily.

My solution for Ireland (its a long shot) would be to turn Ireland into a marine reserve banning any fishing up to xkms off shore and police it vigilantly. Come on John Gormley, one last shot before you lose your place in Govt.!!

some_dose

IMO it should be relatively easy to enlighten a large percentage of the population about how eating fish such as cod and tuna (two of the fish at legitimate risk of extinction) in such large amounts are putting pressure on the fisheries to produce more of these fish and thus fish them to extinction. But why is it not done?

Simply due to the power of the fishing lobby and industry. Fisheries are also an out of sight out of mind problem for most people - if they can't physically see a reduction in stocks, they presume things are fine. Bluefin in Japan is a perfect example of this

My solution for Ireland (its a long shot) would be to turn Ireland into a marine reserve banning any fishing up to xkms off shore and police it vigilantly. Come on John Gormley, one last shot before you lose your place in Govt.!!

Utterly hopeless solution. We cannot even protect our one sportfish (bass) from the fishermen as it is with illegal netting more rampant now than ever. Also our new Minister for Fisheries, Connick, will ruin everything. Mark my words, there will not be a fish left in our waters after him. He is biased completely towards commercial exploitation with no time for confirmation. The fucker is not fit to hold his office IMO

Sport101

some_dose wrote: »

Utterly hopeless solution. We cannot even protect our one sportfish (bass) from the fishermen as it is with illegal netting more rampant now than ever. Also our new Minister for Fisheries, Connick, will ruin everything. Mark my words, there will not be a fish left in our waters after him. He is biased completely towards commercial exploitation with no time for confirmation. The fucker is not fit to hold his office IMO

I was suggesting this as a somewhat utopian solution not what I thought the government would actually get close to doing!

The solution in my eyes is to raise public awareness, and it is saddening that the media play no part in this considering the scale of the problem. When you see the frenzy people get into over experimenting on rabbits, or hunting foxes, you'd imagine that the destruction of the majority of our seas population should raise an eybrow or two, and make people think twice when they order a tuna sandwich or a battered cod.

Agreed on Connick, his agenda is far removed from the provision of sustainable fisheries.

some_dose

Well times are changing, albeit slowly. Go back 5 or 10 years and a movie like "The End of the Line" would never have been screened on tv. The heightened awareness of the state of Bluefin tuna and to a lesser extent, problems associated with cod and farmed salmon, have slowly pushed the problem of overfishing into the general public's conscience. MSC (although by no means a perfect answer) certified fish and increased responsibility in the sourcing of seafood by large supermarket chains (particularly in the UK) have shown that retailers are beginning to take this problem seriously.

On a brighter note, the revising of the CFP in the next few years will almost certainly result in the abolition of subsidies to fishing fleets. This, in conjunction with rising cost of fuel, will hopefully result in many boats going bust and having to be scrapped thus removing the main problem facing global fisheries which is gross over-capacity (especially in relation to the Spanish fleet). Will there be fish left by the time this happens? Who knows.......

The_Minister

As we wipe out one fish species we move onto the next, and then the next.

A viable long-term solution.

Dubliner Cheese

I am interested in supporting in whatever way works the setup of a Marine Reserve in Dublin Bay, say a 15km radius -- not sure if this is the right size. But it would be a good example to the rest of the country and wouldn't it be great to be able to see large fish in the bay?

The sanctuary would run from just north of Bray to north of Malahide -- I tried to put in a picture of the area but I can't.

What does anyone think?

jacaranda

Sport101 wrote: »

Why is it that the topic of overfhishing is rarely tackled by the mainstream media or by politicians?

Could it be that the whole issue is not decided by individual member states, but by the EU and individual politicians, like John Gormley, have no power to interfere?

Have the EU, in turn, created a policy which means fisherman have to dump hundreds of tons of fish at sea which are perfectly good to eat, rather than land them, because of their silly rules?

Sport101

Dubliner Cheese wrote: »

I am interested in supporting in whatever way works the setup of a Marine Reserve in Dublin Bay, say a 15km radius -- not sure if this is the right size. But it would be a good example to the rest of the country and wouldn't it be great to be able to see large fish in the bay?

The sanctuary would run from just north of Bray to north of Malahide -- I tried to put in a picture of the area but I can't.

What does anyone think?

Marine reserves in Ireland would be a great step forward, but as far as I'm aware we do not currently have any marine protected areas or a policy for establishing marine protected areas or reserves.

There are issues that really have to be looked at in some depth to identify important breeding grounds, spawning, nurseries etc, before MPAs are proposed.

Interestignlyg the UK and Scotland have recently announced plans to establish networks of MPAs by 2012:

http://www.seafish.org/b2b/info.asp?p=345
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/30/scotland-marine-protection-bill

Where is Ireland's polcy on this? Under the CFP, there is provision made for each member state to establish protected zones.

http://www.marbef.org/wiki/Marine_Protected_Areas_in_Europe

Of course policing these areas could be costly, but I seem to remember reading somewhere recently that the local fishermen ni New Zealand, who recognise the benefit ofhaving MPAs or Marine Reserves close to their fishing grounds, and thus benefit from the overflow, end up policing these zones themselves to protect their own business.

There is also the potential positive effect of increased tourism to be considered from the establishment of MPAs or Marine Reserves.

I'd be very interested to hear if there was a policy being drafted for this in Ireland.

Zzippy

Marine reserves would be a huge step forward in this country. Even better would be banning bottom trawling and tangle netting within 10km of the coastline. The inshore areas are hugely important for spawning and nursery habitat, and if left alone, would result in massive improvements in juvenile survival.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that improved juvenile survival leads to increased recruitment to adult stocks, and better fishing for commercial fishermen. It would take a good few years to see the benefits, however, which to the fishing industry, which is over reliant on short term profit at the expense of long term gain, is too long.

Shortsightedness and political clout will ensure that by the time we have marine reserves in Ireland, it may be far too late.

Sport101

It was interesting to note in a documentary last night shown on rte that the Azores had banned bottom trawling, its a crazy method of fishing, ensuring destruction of all sorts of marine life.
Are there no distance restrictions in Ireland at all from the land when it comes to bottom trawling?
Would it be in Ireland's power to ban this or is it tangled up in the CFP?

Dubliner Cheese

I agree that there should be large areas of the coastline in which trawling is illegal, however its probably too big a first step. The advantage of banning fishing in Dublin bay is that the people it puts out of work can be compensated and they are more likely to find work in Dublin than elsewhere.

Also while I take your point that more work needs to be done in looking at spawning grounds, fish like pollock tend to spawn widely and in a 15km radius, there is enough space for large pollock to grow up.

I would suggest shore angling be still allowed, this would build local support at ground level. Within 5 to 10 years, we could expect more frequent sightings of porpoise and dolphins as their prey becomes larger and more numerous. This sanctuary would be as much about building an awareness about our sea wildlife as much as our land based animals.

Another Question: Why is the Green Party not looking at practical measures like this that have real long term benefits to Irish Wildlife species rather than protecting deer which have no population problems at all?

Dubliner Cheese

On the matter of the CFP -- I would love to know more about individual States powers to protect their wildlife. I would imagine if you ban everybody -- including Irish anglers then you have some leeway but I don't know. As was said earlier, the UK is implementing some sanctuaries -- they are in the EU, so if they can do it so can we.

Sport101

Dubliner Cheese wrote: »

On the matter of the CFP -- I would love to know more about individual States powers to protect their wildlife. I would imagine if you ban everybody -- including Irish anglers then you have some leeway but I don't know. As was said earlier, the UK is implementing some sanctuaries -- they are in the EU, so if they can do it so can we.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

CJhaughey

Sport101 wrote: »

Of course policing these areas could be costly, but I seem to remember reading somewhere recently that the local fishermen ni New Zealand, who recognise the benefit ofhaving MPAs or Marine Reserves close to their fishing grounds, and thus benefit from the overflow, end up policing these zones themselves to protect their own business.

The difference between NZ and here is that in NZ the fishermen themselves own the quota and have every incentive to protect it.
If there was an Individual Transferable Quota system here then it would be highly likely that the local fishermen would set up no-fish areas. and police them.
BUT seeing as we are all part of the EU and fishing in EU waters is run by Spain and France it is unlikely.
What fisherman is going to do themselves out of a job to allow other EU states to have better fishing?

You do also realise that it is possible for a NI registered inshore fishing vessel to legitimately fish up to the coast for Bass all around Ireland?
Not for ROI registered vessels though.

Regarding Bottom Trawling, there are a lot of misconceptions about this subject and I would like to address a few here.

Bottom trawling has been in use in Europe for over 100 years, most areas that can be trawled will have been trawled at this point.
90% or more of the changes that occur after trawling happen on the first trawl, after that each trawl makes less of a change.
Heavily trawled areas are still productive after many years, why so if demersal trawling is so devasting?
Small vessels using demersal gear for bottom species actually do little damage especially on soft bottoms like the Irish sea, conversely it is my opinion that fishing on Deepwater coral reefs should be and has been stopped.
However much of the effort on these places is actually done by other EU nations that use more destructive but less emotive means of catching like Gillnets.
Irish fishermen are hamstrung already virtue of having more or less given the dowry of the richest fishing waters away when we acceded to the EU.
Forcing Irish fishermen to stop fishing by banning inshore fishing would be the deathknell to many communities around the coast, who struggle on despite being labelled criminals by Politicians using Dail privilege to slander them.

Its all very well talking about Tourism replacing fishing but on a cold wet and windy January morning there aren't going to be too many tourists around to get money off of.
As someone once said " ye can't eat the scenery"
This country could be self sufficient in fish and export the rest for cold hard export euros if it had competent politicians in the field.
But sadly most in Ireland turn their faces away from the sea.
Look at Norway for an example of what a country can do if Fisheries are managed properly. We have broadly similar resources to them but are allowed only a tiny fraction of the Quota.
Banning fishing around the coast sounds like a Utopian ideal but is actually dangerous and very misinformed nonsense.
By all means lobby for some MPA's but calling for a No Take zone around the whole coast is just lunacy even by Irish standards (NAMA etc)

Sport101

CJhaughey wrote: »

Regarding Bottom Trawling, there are a lot of misconceptions about this subject and I would like to address a few here.Bottom trawling has been in use in Europe for over 100 years, most areas that can be trawled will have been trawled at this point.
90% or more of the changes that occur after trawling happen on the first trawl, after that each trawl makes less of a change.

So you think because most of the damage is done already there's no point in banning it now and letting the seabed & sealife recover? Interesting view

CJhaughey wrote: »

Heavily trawled areas are still productive after many years, why so if demersal trawling is so devasting?

For how long? Where? Can you provide evidence of this?

CJhaughey wrote: »

Small vessels using demersal gear for bottom species actually do little damage especially on soft bottoms like the Irish sea, conversely it is my opinion that fishing on Deepwater coral reefs should be and has been stopped.

Agreed.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Irish fishermen are hamstrung already virtue of having more or less given the dowry of the richest fishing waters away when we acceded to the EU.

I don't see this as an Ireland vs EU problem, this is a bigger issue than that, there will be no fish left if fishing persists at current levels.

CJhaughey wrote: »

... who struggle on despite being labelled criminals by Politicians using Dail privilege to slander them.

not sure what you are on about but obviously some gripe you have.

CJhaughey wrote: »

This country could be self sufficient in fish and export the rest for cold hard export euros if it had competent politicians in the field.
But sadly most in Ireland turn their faces away from the sea.

Maybe Ireland could be self sufficient in fish, we are a small, sparsely populated island so its feasible, however there is a bigger picture here, the global fish stocks are being destroyed through overfishing and a solution needs to be found before they are completely destroyed.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Banning fishing around the coast sounds like a Utopian ideal but is actually dangerous and very misinformed nonsense.

Why? Who is this so dangerous for? Local fishermen?
If the scale of this problem is as real as scientist suggest then why not ban fishing as part of the global solution to this problem. Fishermen struggle to catch fish close to Ireland anyway and currently have to go further and further for their catches, so why not impose a ban, even temporarily as part of an EU agreed solution.

Or then again, we could just all fight our corners, ignore the bigger problem and deal with it together in years to come when its too late.

Interesting doc on Marine Reserves for anyone interested:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/marinereservescolor.pdf

CJhaughey

Sport101 wrote: »

So you think because most of the damage is done already there's no point in banning it now and letting the seabed & sealife recover?

Recover to what point? Where it was 100 years ago? Where it was 10 years ago? Or last week?
You could be talking about an area that may not have changed at all when first towed over.

Sport101 wrote: »

For how long? Where? Can you provide evidence of this?

Hard to provide data for this but if you ever looked at a trawlers plotter that shows position and previously trawled tracks you can see that some areas are continuously fished, if they didn't have fish on them they wouldn't be trawled.

Sport101 wrote: »

I don't see this as an Ireland vs EU problem, this is a bigger issue than that, there will be no fish left if fishing persists at current levels.

Current levels by who Irish vessels or EU vessels?
Irish vessels couldn't make much of a difference in our own waters let alone the whole EU. Look at the Fleet sizes for Spain/France and compare them with their fishable waters.
Then do the same for Ireland.

Sport101 wrote: »

not sure what you are on about but obviously some gripe you have.

Noel Dempsey called fishermen criminals, anywhere but the Dail would have had him for slander

Sport101 wrote: »

Maybe Ireland could be self sufficient in fish, we are a small, sparsely populated island so its feasible, however there is a bigger picture here, the global fish stocks are being destroyed through overfishing and a solution needs to be found before they are completely destroyed.

Which fish stocks? There are quite a few. :rolleyes:
Not all stocks are in danger, there are plenty that are perfectly healthy.
Albacore Tuna is in fine health, likewise Atlanto-Scandian Mackerel, to name two.

Sport101 wrote: »

Why? Who is this so dangerous for? Local fishermen?
If the scale of this problem is as real as scientist suggest then why not ban fishing as part of the global solution to this problem. Fishermen struggle to catch fish close to Ireland anyway and currently have to go further and further for their catches, so why not impose a ban, even temporarily as part of an EU agreed solution.

Damgerous for Ireland inc as a nation, once you lose the ability to feed yourself you are in danger.
Which fishermen struggle to catch fish close to Ireland? Where do they go to catch fish? France? Spain?
What do you propose the fishermen do when you ban fishing? Take tourists out on their old trawlers? Cut turf?
The industry here isn't huge but it still provides a living for many families in remote areas of the coast that have little or nothing else in the way of employment locally.
Should all these people pack up and move to the city in search of a better life? What should the local industries that depend on fishing vessels do?
Shipyards, painters, mechanics, netmakers, chandleries, marine electronics firms. what do they all do?
Have you really thought this through or are you just spouting semi-informed thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

Sport101

Apols on slow reply, weekend got in the way.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Recover to what point? Where it was 100 years ago? Where it was 10 years ago? Or last week?
You could be talking about an area that may not have changed at all when first towed over.

Depends on the type of seabed really, for sand its not really an issue, for reefs or similar maybe where it was 20 years ago, even longer.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Hard to provide data for this but if you ever looked at a trawlers plotter that shows position and previously trawled tracks you can see that some areas are continuously fished, if they didn't have fish on them they wouldn't be trawled.

Trawlers do not yield the same results over years, stocks are declining and trawling yields are much smaller. Maybe certain areas do remain productive for many years... but not sustainably. Current practices eusure there can be no gift that keeps on giving. The facts don't lie:
http://www.mcsuk.org/what_we_do/Fishing%20for%20our%20future/Fisheries%20-%20what%20we%20do/Fish%20stock%20decline%20worse%20than%20previously%20thought

I think it would be sensible if a scientific approach was taken with trawling, and areas that have complex seabeds, rock reefs, coral reefs etc be marked as restricted/banned for bottom trawling. Other areas, such as sand bottomed seabeds can recover quickly, and would be ok for bottom trawling.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Current levels by who Irish vessels or EU vessels?
Irish vessels couldn't make much of a difference in our own waters let alone the whole EU. Look at the Fleet sizes for Spain/France and compare them with their fishable waters.
Then do the same for Ireland.

As I said before I don't see this as an us vs them problem, this is a global issue. Yes, the bigger countries are causing considerably more damage to global fish stocks, but where does putting our heads in the sand get us, when we could try to address the problem before it becomes a crisis and propose potential solutions.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Which fish stocks? There are quite a few. :rolleyes:
Not all stocks are in danger, there are plenty that are perfectly healthy.
Albacore Tuna is in fine health, likewise Atlanto-Scandian Mackerel, to name two.

The fish stocks that unfortunately are the most popular to eat are in gravest danger of complete collapse:
Cod, Hake, haddock, Ling, Plaice Halibut, Turbot, Sole, (to name a few in the north atlantic)

CJhaughey wrote: »

What do you propose the fishermen do when you ban fishing? Take tourists out on their old trawlers? Cut turf?
The industry here isn't huge but it still provides a living for many families in remote areas of the coast that have little or nothing else in the way of employment locally.
Should all these people pack up and move to the city in search of a better life? What should the local industries that depend on fishing vessels do?
Shipyards, painters, mechanics, netmakers, chandleries, marine electronics firms. what do they all do?

If these fishermen sit on their hands and do nothing to address this problem they will be in the same situation in years to come anyway as there will be no fish, and no boats to paint or fix. The ostrich approach is not a viable solution, even if there are others who are more culpable.

Dubliner Cheese

When the government deregulated taxis because it was impossible to get home from Dublin on a Saturday night, taximen went crazy, but for everyone else the situation got better. The world changes and some jobs become unnecessary -- There are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, they do not own the fish, just like a taximan does not own a customer. We need to presererve our fish for the 99% of our population that are not commercial fishermen, and their children, and their childrens children.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.noble-house.tk/html/engels/Fishes/Atlantic_Dawn_replaces_fisherman.htm

The problem is that fishing is far more efficient than before. The Atlantic Dawn with a crew of 63 takes as much fish as 7,000 African fishermen. The only way this can be sustainable is if 6,937 fishermen give up fishing.

It's the same here, even if it's not 100:1 every improvement in efficiency means fishermen have to loose their jobs, because there aren't more fish in the sea. The Altantic Dawn is taking about 7,000 tonnes per month , that's about 100 tonnes per fisherman per month, way more than previous generations.






Does anyone have any stats on the changes in fish stocks caused by fishing restrictions during WWI and WWII especially the time to get back to normal levels ?


[edit] the Atlantic stats are per trip, so they actually take maybe 10 times than much per year ! - so it's the equivalent of 70,000 fishermen

CJhaughey

I am not trying to justify the Atlantic Dawn.
I don't believe that it is sustainable or morally justifiable.
Funny thing is that that when it was built, I remember that one of the partners was Anglo Irish bank and AIB.
It has little relevance to the rest of the Irish fishing industry and in fact is almost universally disliked by most fishermen in Ireland who have to pay for their vessels tonnage.
The Atlantic Dawn didn't even appear on the register of Irish fishing vessels, instead it was classed a merchant vessel which exempted her from having to buy tonnage on the open market.
The whole saga was rotten to my mind and the AD is simply unjustifiable and Immoral.
I don't believe that any country should move excess fishing power to fish another countries fish stocks out which is exactly what the AD is doing.

Dubliner Cheese

Railing against the Atlantic Dawn does two things which to my mind are dangerous. It says that a few people catching a lot of fish is worse than a lot of people catching a lot of fish -- thats not true anywhere else in the modern world, anyone building their own cars out there? The problem with the Atlantic Dawn is one of charging for the true impact of that method of fishing -- what environmental impact does it have and how can it be charged for that impact. Proper charging will either shut down the boat or will drive improved fish management (increased stocks). The second problem people talk about is the impact on the local fishing communities. It might be callous, but in a conversation about fish, I simply don't care about them, economics shift, if the externalities of the fishing are worked out properly and the funds received from the atlantic dawn are passed to the people who lose their jobs then that works out ok. Once you start trying to fix the world, not just save our fish then we really have set an impossible target.

In a way I have a problem with the whole Atlantic Dawn argument anyway. I am interested in saving Irish fish in Irish waters. The Atlantic Dawn doesn't fish here. Lets get a system in place to sustain and grow our own inshore fish stocks and worry about the rest of the world later.

Colpriz

Watch.. river cottage 'gone fishing', alternative fish we can substitute and make interesting meals from. Requires a change in ppl's habbits though

Sport101

For anyone interested more 4 is showing The End of The Line tonight at 10pm.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-end-of-the-line