Hugh's Fish Fight

Minder

Hugh Fearlessly-Eats-It-All is campaigning in Europe to stop the practice of discard - throwing back dead fish because the Fisheries Policy dictates that trawlers will only catch certain species and certain numbers. This means that half of all North Sea fish is thrown back dead.

Like him or loathe him, this campaign is worthy of support. I believe it's relevant to Boards members as this is a European Fisheries Policy - it affects Irish trawlers as much as English.

If you are interested in the campaign, there are more details here...

http://www.fishfight.net/sign-up/

Alun

I saw that too. I was always under the impression that 'by catch' or 'discard' consisted mainly of strange, obscure and/or inedible species that had little or no economic or culinary worth, but seeing those lovely huge (7 or 8 kg or more) cod being thrown back was just insane and makes absolutely no ecological or economic sense.

UCD AFC

This has got all the right people behind it - Hugh driving it, Jamie Oliver doing some recipes (use of his publicity) and not sure on this one but isn't Heston doing a show? Have signed up and linking it on other websites

unkel

Alun wrote: »

I saw that too. I was always under the impression that 'by catch' or 'discard' consisted mainly of strange, obscure and/or inedible species that had little or no economic or culinary worth, but seeing those lovely huge (7 or 8 kg or more) cod being thrown back was just insane and makes absolutely no ecological or economic sense.

+1

Signed up.

Darkginger

Yes, Heston's involved, and Gordon Ramsay too. Part of the message is to stop eating the endangered species - cod, monkfish, tuna, etc. - and replace them with fish from sustainable stocks - the basa fillets from Aldi are pretty nice, and pollack is good too. If I remember rightly from what I read about these programmes, each chef will be showcasing recipes using some of the less sought after fish - so if you want to support this, start asking for those fish from your supermarkets and fishmongers.

reallyrose

I haven't eaten cod knowly in years and I attempt not to eat tuna. I can't afford monkfish so that's ok. :pac:

I bought mackerel today after watching Fish Fight.

mad al

Darkginger wrote: »

Yes, Heston's involved, and Gordon Ramsay too. Part of the message is to stop eating the endangered species - cod, monkfish, tuna, etc. - and replace them with fish from sustainable stocks - the basa fillets from Aldi are pretty nice, and pollack is good too. If I remember rightly from what I read about these programmes, each chef will be showcasing recipes using some of the less sought after fish - so if you want to support this, start asking for those fish from your supermarkets and fishmongers.

I think monkfish is ok. Its wild salmon that is also endangered.

Corsendonk

Very one sided show.......as usual from todays media.

While I am not a fan of the discard system its the best system currently available. The system is practiced worldwide not just by the EU. If you allow fishermen to land high value discards outside the permitted quota suddenly someone fishing for dogfish(petfood) starts landing high amounts of cod discards.

Maybe someone here has a better idea than the discard/by-catch system? A quick fix would be to ban nets entirely but then fish would be priced above most consumers budget range. Our limited range of fish species that we consume has not helped matters.

Source:FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1997

Why Discard?
Fish of wrong species. (Not of the target species for the particular operator).

Fish are of the wrong size. (Command too low a price on the market to be worth landing or outside the limits imposed by management for capture or landing of that particular species).

Fish are of the wrong sex (Usually where gender is important from the processing and marketing point of view).

Fish are damaged (Caused by gear or predation in nets or mis-handling etc.).

Fish are incompatible with rest of catch (Slime or abrasion could cause damage to target species).

Fish are poisonous or otherwise considered inedible.

Fish spoil rapidly (Causing problems with the rest of the catch).

Lack of space on board (Where fishing operations are successful and target species take precedence over lower value or non-target species).

High Grading (Certain attributes of a fish make it more marketable and therefore more valuable than another and the less valuable is discarded - this is often related to size).

Quotas reached (This may involve discarding of small specimens of the target species to make way for more valuable specimens of the same species for instance - which is often a reason given for high grading).

Prohibited Species (Where quotas are species-based fish may be discarded from one vessel although another vessel with a quota related to the errant species may have been able to land that same fish legally).

Prohibited Season (Where time bound constraints are made on catching particular species, specimens may be discarded if caught in the wrong season).

Prohibited Gear (A quota may be given for capture of a particular species by a particular type of gear - if the wrong gear catches the wrong fish then fish may be discarded).

Prohibited fishing grounds (Fishing ground may be closed for capture of one species but open for others - if the wrong type is caught it can be discarded).

The driving forces behind the practices of discarding can be divided into a number of categories. Crean and Symes (1994) define three main classes as follows:

a) marine biomass caught incidentally while targeting other species and discarded as sea (by-catch discards)

b) quota discards, where part of the catch is returned to the sea to comply with legal requirements relating to permitted quota entitlements of minimum landing sizes

c) pre-market selection, for example high grading, discarding of damaged fish etc.

Worldwide
Source:Wikipedia

Discarding is a problem in all fisheries, and nations have adopted a number of measures to deal with the issue. The idea of banning discards is that since the fish that are discarded have a negligible chance of survival it is better from a management perspective that they are included in the fishing induced mortality figures on which allowable catch estimates are based.

Norway The Norwegian Government introduced a ban on the discarding of some commercial species of fish in mid 1990.[11] The initiative in Norway has been coupled with a comprehensive programme of monitoring and surveillance and a system whereby areas can be opened and closed when bycatch rates become excessive. The Norwegian system of attempting to reduce mortality of illegal fish is based on reducing their capture rather than reducing landing of "illegal" specimens. [12]

Canada Canada has also instituted a ban on discarding at sea in its Atlantic groundfish fishery that makes it illegal to return to the water any groundfish except those specifically authorised and those caught in cod traps. Authorised release is only considered for species that are known to have high survival rates on release or where there is no practical or nutritional use for a particular species. In addition to the banning of discards larger vessels are required to carry observers which would imply that there are now no illegal discards on these vessels.[11]

Iceland The introduction by the Icelandic Government of an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system of fisheries management across virtually all its major fisheries was followed by the introduction of a ban of at-sea discarding of catch[11]. The Icelandic regulations require the retention of most fish for which quotas have been set or species for which a market exists. Since it is compulsory to land smaller fish but the government does not wish to encourage their capture, there are upper limits on the percentage weight of fish that can be landed below minimum landing size. Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands have introduced similar regulations.

New Zealand The quota management system in place in New Zealand makes the discarding of most species of fish illegal. The ITQ system in New Zealand is complex system, and where fish are landed by a fisherman without quota for a particular species, they have the option to buy quota from another fisherman, or the value of the overrun catch be surrendered to the state. In many cases the fishermen find it easier to discard the fish at sea than go through the complex system of landing the fish and then making it legal.[11] There was a measurable increase in discarding immediately following the introduction of the ITQ system[13], despite the fact that fishermen were offered 10% of the market price for fish landed outside quota. In an attempt to address this change, the New Zealand Government increased the percentage of market price paid to 50%. The balance between offering an incentive to land discarded fish and the disincentive to catch fish over or outside quota limits is clearly a fine one, and dependent on the financial reward or penalty attached.

The European Union EU legislation currently states that there are total allowable catches for each species, which are sub-divided between European Union member states, the intention of which is to conserve fish stocks. The individual countries then use this figure as a basis for quota allocation to individual fishermen or fishermens organisations. The quota rules however require that any fish which is caught outside quota allowances or below minimum landing size be discarded and that it is an offence for a fishing vessel to be carrying on board any fish for which it does not have a valid quota or which is outside regulated size limits[11]. This is an example of discarding practice being driven by political considerations.

Boycott eating tropical shrimp/prawns?

Source: FAO 2005

Trawl fisheries for shrimp and demersal finfish account for over 50 percent of total estimated discards while representing approximately 22 percent of total landings recorded in the study. Tropical shrimp trawl fisheries have the highest discard rate and account for over 27 percent of total estimated discards. Demersal finfish trawls account for 36 percent of the estimated global discards. Most purse-seine, handline, jig, trap and pot fisheries have low discard rates. Small-scale fisheries generally have lower discard rates than industrial fisheries. The small-scale fisheries account for over 11 percent of the discard database landings and have a weighted discard rate of 3.7 percent.

Evidence is presented for a substantial reduction in discards in recent years. The major reasons for this are a reduction in unwanted bycatch and increased utilization of catches. Bycatch reduction is largely a result of the use of more selective fishing gears, introduction of bycatch and discard regulations, and improved enforcement of regulatory measures. Increased retention of bycatch for human or animal food results from improved processing technologies and expanding market opportunities for lower-value catch.

Further reading(sorry its not a youtube video:rolleyes:)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6602e/w6602E00.htm

http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5936e/y5936e02.htm#TopOfPage

Minder

Corsendonk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the discard system its the best system currently available.

So you see no problem at all with the practice? It doesn't need to be changed?

Minder

Another point of view.

Blaming foreigners for the vanishing fish.
THERE is a lot of talk in the air, just now, about the madness of the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and how its strict quota system forces British trawlermen to throw vast quantities of fish back into the sea, dead. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, a television chef and food writer, mounted a passionate attack on the CFP this week on Channel 4 (you can watch it here, as long as you can tolerate the maddening, compulsory advertisements about meerkats). As happens on such programmes, Mr F-W went out on a trawler with some gruff but friendly fishermen, who told him how it broke their hearts to throw perfectly edible cod back into the sea.

The programme noted, correctly, that this is appallingly wasteful, and that the CFP is working very badly. It explained how the problem was that the giant, well-equipped boat in question had used up its cod quota for the year and was now fishing for other less desirable species like ling and monkfish in a desperate attempt to earn enough money to keep operating. But alas, when the nets were pulled back in they were full of lots of cod, and only a very few monkfish. Mr F-W looked miserable as he watched 90% of the catch being ditched over the side.

For a huge majority of those watching, I suspect the conclusion was that wicked, stupid EU bureaucrats were to blame. I imagine the following exchange in the House of Commons this week, between a Labour MP, Kelvin Hopkins and a Conservative MP, John Redwood, would have cheered them greatly:

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): Wisely, Britain already has a number of opt-outs from the European Union. I am thinking specifically of the single currency; it was to the great credit of our former leader that he kept us out of the euro. Would not a test arise, however, if Britain decided to opt out of something that we currently opt into? For example, if we chose to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and to place our own historic fishing grounds under democratic British control, would not that represent a test of our sovereignty?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Indeed; the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I, too, would like us to opt out of the common fisheries policy. I would like us to elect a Government in this country who had the necessary majority to go off to Brussels and say, “It is now the settled will of this Parliament that we want different arrangements for fishing, and if you will not grant them through the European Union arrangements, we would like to negotiate our exit from the common fisheries policy.” That is exactly the kind of renegotiation that many of my hon. Friends were elected to achieve, and, had we had a majority, we would have wanted our Government to do something like that. There are a number of other policy areas, some of which are more politically contentious across the Floor of the House, where we think we can make better decisions here than are being made in our name by the European Union.
Having worked in Brussels for several years, reporting on the CFP and above all on the horrible annual ministerial meetings at which fish quotas are doled out to each of the 27 member countries, I can sympathise too. Even hardened diplomats described the annual December fish council as a sickening farce, in which scientists proposes fishing bans or tiny quotas to preserve fish species from extinction, the European Commission increases the quotas, national ministers increase them again, and national fishing fleets are sent out again to rape the seas.

But here is the thing. It is emotionally satisfying to side with "our" British trawlermen, who risk their lives doing a dangerous yet somehow romantic job in wild seas, and dream of British fish being protected by British coastguard cutters ready to ram and biff foreign invaders.

But alas, the true tragedy of EU fisheries policy is a lot more complicated. This is a blog posting rather than a polished article, so forgive me for offering a few thoughts for readers to chew on:

Trawlermen are very good at telling reporters how it breaks their heart to throw fish over the side because of EU rules. Some are less quick to mention that throwing fish over the side for commercial profit is rife in their industry. It is called "high-grading" and happens when a trawler fills its holds with low or medium value fish near the beginning of a trip, then fills its nets with a more valuable species. Skippers routinely chuck the first catch over the side to make room for the more profitable fish.

The trawlermen also say they are forced to continue fishing in waters full of cod, after their cod quotas are exhausted, just to make ends meet. It is wrong and awful, one skipper tells Mr F-W: he is forced to look for Dover Sole, but catches tonnes of cod instead, which he has to discard. I hate to be harsh, but just maybe what you are hearing there is somebody describing a business that is only marginally viable, and which is only viable if he does stupid and wasteful things like go out fishing in the knowledge he can only land a fraction of his catch.

Trawling is only marginally viable in some northern European waters for all sorts of reasons. One big reason is historic over-fishing by fishing fleets. Another big reason is that there are still too many boats seeking to fish for too many days a year. Yes, the EU has paid national governments to decommission boats, but the boats that are left grow more and more powerful and efficient at finding fish every year. Even with a fleet of constant size, the so-called "technological creep" increases the average fleet's killing capacity by about 4% a year.

Lots of today's trawlers in places like the North Sea are big and fuel-thirsty. They were built at a time of lower fuel prices, when it made economic sense to trade engine power for labour. Now, though trawler fuel is tax-free in the EU (a walloping subsidy, by the way), high oil prices make some trawlers uneconomical every time they leave port.

The EU, meaning Brussels bureaucrats, knows the CFP is crazy. Top European Commission officials say the current quota system is indefensible. The problem is that certain key national governments, eg, France, Italy, Greece, Malta, Poland (it is a long list), are adamantly opposed to any reforms that would lead to wholesale restructuring and consolidation of fishing fleets.

Given the horribly fragile state of fish stocks, the best reforms would involve a market-based system, in which the overall catch were divided up into shares which could be traded among fishermen. This would give them an incentive to avoid overfishing (something like this has worked well in New Zealand). Just saying that the policy of throwing back dead fish must stop is not enough to save the fish. An end to discards is only safe if the overall "fishing effort" continues to be reduced. That must involve consolidation. But the French, notably, lead a camp wedded to the idea that each individual fishing fleet in each individual port must be preserved, and hang the preservation of fish.

Did you know (I do, because I have seen it with my own eyes) that French fishermen so dislike market forces that they set a minimum price that they will accept, nationwide, for each species, each time they land their catches? If dealers at fish markets fail to meet that minimum price, the boxes of fish are taken to the harbour wall and tipped into the water. French fishermen (always ready to say how their hearts are broken by EU rules) would rather destroy good fish than allow the market to set prices (or even allow those fish to be sent for free to hospitals, charities or the like).

British Eurosceptics love to point to Iceland as an example of a country that has managed cod stocks well. Iceland is not in the EU, they say, therefore leaving the EU would allow us to run cod fisheries much better, QED. Well, I have reported from Iceland and interviewed fishermen, fish wholesalers, politicians and officials about their system. Their model does work a lot better than the CFP. But, and this is relevant, Iceland's fishing grounds are also rather easy to manage. They are often "clean", meaning that if you dip your nets in one bit of sea, you catch one species. As a rule of thumb, this happens in colder water. Once you get down into the North Sea and the English Channel, let alone further south, trawlers must contend with mixed fisheries, where a single net may contain a dozen species.

Finally, what of the bold talk in Parliament about grabbing back control of British historical fishing grounds? It is heart-warming, but it is bunkum. Yes, the British government did a poor deal over fish to get into the EEC under Edward Heath. Yes, it is horrible seeing British ministers locked in airless meeting rooms in Brussels, locked into a system that destroys fishing stocks. It would be lovely to stamp our feet and say no British minister will ever take part in such a travesty again.

But many of the most valuable fish stocks, such as North Sea herring, swim between British, Dutch, Belgian and French waters. If we stalked out of the EU, good luck persuading some of our ex-partners to exercise restraint when part-time British herring are over their side of the line. Equally, there are trawlers from Belgium, for instance, with historic fishing rights in British waters dating back hundreds of years. So if we pulled out of the CFP, British fish ministers would still have to meet fish ministers from the French, Belgian, Dutch, Danish or Polish fleets each year to haggle over mutal access rights and allowable catches. Why, those ministers might even find it easier to meet for joint meetings once a year. They might even find themselves meeting in a city with easy transport links for the countries involved, such as Brussels.

So what is the answer? Fight for reform within the CFP. There are some big important countries that know the CFP is broken, and that the whole system needs to change. The Dutch are allies, the Nordics and—at least when it comes to traded quotas and market-based systems—the Spanish.

And please, television presenters of Britain, do not give a free pass to fishermen. They may be grizzled and brave, but in almost every country with a coastline, too many have proved themselves to be environmental vandals with no sense of their long-term interests, let alone those of the poor fish.

Update, Friday 14th. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's latest episode includes a visit to Brussels to lobby the EU. In the interests of fairness, I should report that he openly concedes that the causes of CFP failure are complex. He also has a practical suggestion: that the British fish-eating public ease the pressure on cod, salmon and tuna by eating a wider range of species, such as unfashionable but tasty mackerel and dab. His campaign website, Hugh's Fish Fight, links to all sorts of organisations with ideas on CFP reform. He also comes across as a thoughtful and decent man, rightly outraged by the horror of discards. Having seen Brussels at work, however, I worry that his campaign is too British-centric. The real problem here is countries like France, and their cowardly pandering politicians who live in terror of the fishing lobby because theirs is a picturesque, romantic and dangerous job.

Under a previous pseudonym I once argued that politicians live by what I call the Richard Scarry rule, namely, no elected politician likes to tangle with any sector of the economy that routinely appears in children's books (eg, firemen, farmers, fishermen, nurses, teachers, drivers of planes, trains and things that move). The British government has wanted CFP reform for years, but British ministers calling for reform are ten-a-penny in the EU, and their arguments are undermined by the ferocity of the Eurosceptic camp back home. If Mr F-W really wants to change things, he needs to launch his campaign in France. Good luck with that.

The interesting part is that most observers agree that the policy of discard is wasteful and wrong, but the problem is very complex and the solutions may be impossible to achieve across such a diverse area as the European Union.

Corsendonk

Minder wrote: »

So you see no problem at all with the practice? It doesn't need to be changed?

Of course there are problems with the system, isn't there always pro and con's with every system. I did state it was the "best system currently available". I listed other systems in my reply and there have been problems with them too. It easy to look from outside into every industry and see black and white were gray exists.

snaps

Sign up, sign up

http://www.fishfight.net/

Needs to be stopped, its a disgrace what the EU twats dictate.

Gordon is doing a programme on Shark fins this week i think.

No wonder the fishing industry is on its knees, EU are saying the stocks are not out there, well the evidence of the stocks being out there is all around, problem is the stocks are all being thrown back dead.

The obvious solution would be for fisherman to share their catches so they all get their quotas, but they cant even do that!

So sign up

http://www.fishfight.net/

Get behind these guys, I know Jamie Oliver is a bit of a twat, but he has a lot of clout, Hugh knows his onions and Gordon will have the Iron fist approach!

Minder

Corsendonk wrote: »

Of course there are problems with the system, isn't there always pro and con's with every system. I did state it was the "best system currently available". I listed other systems in my reply and there have been problems with them too. It easy to look from outside into every industry and see black and white were gray exists.

I don't believe it's the best system currently available - the New Zealand system is better as it incentivises fishermen to avoid discard in favour of landing overquota.

As most trawlers are technologically advanced, could all boats be made to record and log their catch by weight. Enforce the landing of all catch to eliminate discard. Give quotas for premium fish and pay subsidy for bi-catch as is done in New Zealand? If that was viable, it could also eliminate the practice of high grading.

Darkginger

One of the Scottish fishermen in the programmes said that he would prefer to be limited by number of days fishing, rather than by quotas - that would mean they could land all the fish they catch, and be paid for them, and also spend less time at sea (thus reducing fuel costs as well). Can someone explain to me why this would be a bad idea?

If you're interested in which fish we should be eating, and which should be avoided, there's a lot of information here: http://www.fishonline.org/

Up-n-atom!

I haven't eaten cod knowly in years and I attempt not to eat tuna.

Talking to a friend who has been studying/working in the fisheries area for the last few years, and apparently there's a programme on Channel 4 soon (will probably be linked in with the 'fish fight' thing) about how a huge proportion of our fish (cod particularly) is mislabeled. It's relevant for Ireland as one of her colleague's research was used. Species like cooley (sp?) are much more prevalent in our shops and we're not even aware of it - cod etc has much more recognition and expensive, so someone's winning here, and it's not the consumer. Should make for interesting watching.

laros

I think monkfish is ok

Its not really, as monk-fish tend to be caught by "Beam Trawling" one of the most destructive types of trawling, Hugh doesnt even have any recipes for monk-fish in his "Fish" cookbook because of this.

http://www.ecomare.nl/en/ecomare-encyclopedie/man-and-the-environment/fisheries/fishery-techniques/beam-trawl-fisheries/

CJhaughey

laros wrote: »

Its not really, as monk-fish tend to be caught by "Beam Trawling" one of the most destructive types of trawling, Hugh doesnt even have any recipes for monk-fish in his "Fish" cookbook because of this.

http://www.ecomare.nl/en/ecomare-encyclopedie/man-and-the-environment/fisheries/fishery-techniques/beam-trawl-fisheries/

Beam trawlers do catch Monk but we don't have that big a beamer fleet here. Most monkfish in Ireland is caught by standard or twin-rig trawling.
There are a few beamers based on the East coast but high fuel prices have made things very difficult for them to be profitable.

Albacore Tuna is a great example of why these campaigns have to be looked at carefully especially with regard to Irish fisheries, We catch Albacore Tuna here and have done so for a long time, consumers watch TV and think all Tuna is caught by huge purse seiners and that they shouldn't eat it when there is a sustainably caught Tuna species available right here in Ireland
If you want to make a point ask your fishmonger for Line caught Albacore Tuna. It is usually late Summer/Autumn when they turn up near Ireland and the local boats catch them.

Darkginger

CJhaughey wrote: »

If you want to make a point ask your fishmonger for Line caught Albacore Tuna. It is usually late Summer/Autumn when they turn up near Ireland and the local boats catch them.

This. Hugh's campaign has to paint with a broad brush to make people aware there are issues with some fish and fishing methods - but obviously it can't cover individual locations and practices. The best thing we can do to support the campaign is to educate ourselves regarding the provenance of fish we as individuals buy - so asking in your local fishmonger, Centra, Supervalu, whatever, and finding out where the fish we buy comes from (and then buying accordingly) is what we should be doing.

Corsendonk

Darkginger wrote: »

This. Hugh's campaign has to paint with a broad brush to make people aware there are issues with some fish and fishing methods - but obviously it can't cover individual locations and practices. The best thing we can do to support the campaign is to educate ourselves regarding the provenance of fish we as individuals buy - so asking in your local fishmonger, Centra, Supervalu, whatever, and finding out where the fish we buy comes from (and then buying accordingly) is what we should be doing.

You shouldn't have to ask if your fishmonger or Supermarket is obeying the Law with the counter ticket/ pre-pack label on display. If your fish monger/supermarket is not obeying the law I recommend reporting them. No point asking for changes to law/practices when people can't follow existing legislation aimed at informing the consumer.

http://www.fsai.ie/faq/fish_labelling.html

What information must appear on the label for retail sale?

There are three pieces of information which must be provided at the point of sale:

The commercial designation of the species of fish i.e. the name associated with the particular species of fish e.g. the commercial designation for Ghadus morhua is Cod.
The method of production e.g. caught at sea or in freshwater or produced (farmed) by aquaculture
The origin – for fish caught at sea the origin must be specified by reference to one of the 12 catch areas

CJhaughey

Corsendonk wrote: »

You shouldn't have to ask if your fishmonger or Supermarket is obeying the Law with the counter ticket/ pre-pack label on display. If your fish monger/supermarket is not obeying the law I recommend reporting them. No point asking for changes to law/practices when people can't follow existing legislation aimed at informing the consumer.

Most places are pretty good with labelling fish but the problem is the catch areas are vast. Atlantic NE is a huge area.

the beer revolu

The system is obviously flawed.
But having been on trawlers (small ones) on a couple of occasions and seeing the total disregard for sea life and conservation that those fishermen had, I worry that without a complete change of mindset amongst the fishing community changing the system will achieve little.

Somehow the lobster fishermen managed to organise themselves to fish sustainably but I wonder if the same can happen with trawlers?

Personally, I've been put off eating any commercially caught fish.

CJhaughey

I don't agree, I think that most small trawlers are very conservation minded. They are restricted by their size as to how far they can travel and damaging their local areas would in effect be doing themselves out of a job.
And with the amount that they have invested just to stay fishing it would be a nonsensical decision.
I have dealt with many small trawlers and in my experience they are some of the most enthusiastic proponents of conservation.
Many of them are using square mesh panels, escape grids and other devices that allow them to catch in a more selective way, and this can only be a good thing, it reduces their workload and lessens bycatch.

the beer revolu

CJhaughey wrote: »

I don't agree, I think that most small trawlers are very conservation minded. They are restricted by their size as to how far they can travel and damaging their local areas would in effect be doing themselves out of a job.
And with the amount that they have invested just to stay fishing it would be a nonsensical decision.
I have dealt with many small trawlers and in my experience they are some of the most enthusiastic proponents of conservation.
Many of them are using square mesh panels, escape grids and other devices that allow them to catch in a more selective way, and this can only be a good thing, it reduces their workload and lessens bycatch.

That is good to hear but has not been what I have seen in my (limited) experience.
What I couldn't understand was that a huge pile of (mostly alive) sea life was dumped on the deck. They then proceeded to pick out the fish that they wanted and gut and box them. By the time this was done, pretty much everything that they didn't want (much of which would grow up to be legitimate catch) was dead and thrown over board.
A simple thing of sorting and throwing over board the small fry first would have saved a huge amount of fish to be caught another day. Baffled me that people wouldn't do that small thing to help preserve their own livelihood!

Seaneh

the beer revolu wrote: »

That is good to hear but has not been what I have seen in my (limited) experience.
What I couldn't understand was that a huge pile of (mostly alive) sea life was dumped on the deck. They then proceeded to pick out the fish that they wanted and gut and box them. By the time this was done, pretty much everything that they didn't want (much of which would grow up to be legitimate catch) was dead and thrown over board.
A simple thing of sorting and throwing over board the small fry first would have saved a huge amount of fish to be caught another day. Baffled me that people wouldn't do that small thing to help preserve their own livelihood!

That's not what happens at all.

The fish are hauled into the boat in the net, the next is then dumped into a containment hole which feeds them down onto the belt for sorting.

By the time it hits the bets, the fish (99% of them) are dead, they process the ones they have qouta for and the rest carry on down the belt and out the discard shoot.


This is the quickest and easiest was to process the fish, trying to do it on the deck would take hours and hours and odds are a lot of the fish would die anyway.


Trawlers very rarely catch "small fry" as you call it, fry live much further in shore and only go to sea when they are mature.

The discard system is retarded.

Also, the smaller boats, the ones below 10 meters, should have no quote at all, it's retarded, they use nets that garuntee that they only catch large mature fish, in the areas they fish, only certain fish live, if they were allowed catch as much as they can for a limited time, they and the stocks would be much better off.


The quota system is a disgrace, it's not conserving anything as Fishermen have to stay out longer and put out more nets to catch their quote of each different type of fish, in the process of doing so they are catching 3 to 4 times as much Cod as they need to, which all has to go back into the sea dead, just so they can catch a few pollock which they will get a **** price for,


If they shorten the season and let them catch as much as they can and in the season and no more, the stocks would be infinitely better off.

the beer revolu

Seaneh wrote: »

That's not what happens at all.

The fish are hauled into the boat in the net, the next is then dumped into a containment hole which feeds them down onto the belt for sorting.

By the time it hits the bets, the fish (99% of them) are dead, they process the ones they have qouta for and the rest carry on down the belt and out the discard shoot.


This is the quickest and easiest was to process the fish, trying to do it on the deck would take hours and hours and odds are a lot of the fish would die anyway.


Trawlers very rarely catch "small fry" as you call it, fry live much further in shore and only go to sea when they are mature.

The discard system is retarded.

Also, the smaller boats, the ones below 10 meters, should have no quote at all, it's retarded, they use nets that garuntee that they only catch large mature fish, in the areas they fish, only certain fish live, if they were allowed catch as much as they can for a limited time, they and the stocks would be much better off.


The quota system is a disgrace, it's not conserving anything as Fishermen have to stay out longer and put out more nets to catch their quote of each different type of fish, in the process of doing so they are catching 3 to 4 times as much Cod as they need to, which all has to go back into the sea dead, just so they can catch a few pollock which they will get a **** price for,


If they shorten the season and let them catch as much as they can and in the season and no more, the stocks would be infinitely better off.

I stated what I saw happening, not what someone in the pub told me happens and not what I imagined happens. That is what I saw happening, it may not be widespread but do not tell me that it does not happen.:mad::mad:

Perhaps the below catch limit fish I saw were not technically fry but they were a hell of a lot of juvenile fish chucked overboard, many of which could have been saved.

I, too, agree that the discard system is sickening but the point I'm making is that the fishermen(and women) have a role to play in conservation too and are not merely innocent victims of a bad system. This point has been made by others in this thread and has been quoted in articles.

There is still an attitude of "if I don't rape the sea, some other fu**er will" out there and that has to change.

Again, Seaneh, I will say; do not state that what I saw does not happen, disagree with my opinions and conclusions all you like but leave it at that.

Zuiderzee

I am lucky in that where I live, I catch most of my own fish.
But the discard policy is awful, there has to be a better alternative that the EU can impliment

Fairplay to HFW for bringing the issue to the fore, and the campaign already had a positive effect in the UK, with more mackerel and hering being sold instead of cod and haddock.

I for one think the campaign is worthwhile, it affects all the EU so I signed up for it.

A well as that I made flyers for 3 butchers who also sell fish so far in Connemara.

Made up the file and they can print off as many as they like - so if your buddies with a butcher you might consider it, might even get you some free fish!!

One side is fish info, the other side is used for recipes.

Each information sheet is designed to fit on a page of A4

===========
SHOP NAME/LOGO
Fish information sheet
HERRING
Scadán – Herring
(Clupea harengus)
(F) Hareng (D) Hering (NL) Haring (E) Arenque

The trade in herring is an important sector of many national economies. In Europe the fish has been called the "silver of the sea", and its trade has been so significant to many countries that it has been regarded as the most commercially important fishery in history.
In Devon and Cornwall they are called Silver Darlings

Herring are highly prized for flavour and nutrition.

In Connemara, like the West of Scotland, Herring would have been a healthy and popular staple. They are particularly popular in the Netherlands. Herring is also a staple food in Germany, Belgium and Scandinavia. Preserved and pickled they are found throughout Eastern Europe. Kippers are smoked Herring.

Environmental Information
Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) are one of the most environmentally responsible fish.
It is one of the most abundant fish species on earth.
They can grow up to 45 centimeters (17.7 in) in length and weigh more than 0.5 kilograms (1 lb). They feed on copepods, krill and small fish, while their natural predators are seals, whales, cod and other larger fish.

North Atlantic herring schools have been measured up to 4 cubic kilometres (0.96 cu mi) in size, containing an estimated 4 billion fish.

Nutritional Information
Herring are very high in the long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.
They are a good source of vitamin D.

=============

SHOP NAME/LOGO

Fish information sheet

POLLOCK
SAITHE
(Pollachius pollachius)
(F) Lieu / Colin (D) Seelach (NL) Koolvis (E) Carbonero / Fogonero

Traditionally a popular source of food in some countries like Norway where Pollock is often prepared as fried fish balls or if smaller sized maybe breaded with oatmeal and fried as in Shetland. Year old fish are traditionally split, salted and dried over a peat hearth in Orkney.

The fish can also be salted and smoked and achieve a salmon-like orange color (although it is not closely related to the salmon), as is the case in Germany where the fish is commonly sold as Seelachs or sea salmon.
The Atlantic pollock is related to the cod and haddock, it is also called colin, saithe, lythe and coalfish (particularly in the United Kingdom).
Atlantic pollock is a lean fish with somewhat darker flesh than cod.

Environmental Information
In recent years Pollock has become more popular due to over-fishing of other species.
Atlantic Pollock is a local whitefish. Harvested from locally, pollock is caught by mid-water trawls and hand lines.

Nutritional Information
Pollock is very low in saturated fat and a very good source of protein, Vitamin B12, phosphorus, and selenium.

============

SHOP NAME/LOGO

Fish information sheet

Mackerel

Ronnach
(Scomber scombrus)
(F) Maquereau (D) Makrelen (NL) Makreel (E) Caballa

Mackerel is a local, sustainable fish. It is extremely common in huge shoals migrating towards the coast to feed on small fish and prawns during the summer.
Traditionally in Connemara this fish was salted to preserve it, and served with new potato's.

Abundant in cold and temperate shelf areas, it forms large schools near the surface. They over winter in deeper waters but move closer to shore in spring when water temperatures range between 11° and 14°C.

Environmental Information
Mackerel is seen as one of the most sustainable fisheries.
Favoured fishing methods should always be our main priority when sourcing our fish.

The trawl used by the Irish fleet is designed and rigged to fish in mid-water ensuring that there is no impact on bottom habitats or structures. No part of the trawl is designed to come in contact with the sea bed

Nutritional Information
Atlantic mackerel is extremely high in vitamin B 12. Mackerel is also very high in omega 3 containing nearly twice as much per unit weight as does salmon.

Mackerel is an excellent source of Phosphatidylserine, an important brain food that can have positive effects on ADHD and Alzheimer patients.

Firblog

A hugely interesting thread... I used to work on a pelagic (herring/mackerel/scad) factory ship. We regularly discarded huge amounts of fish both because we did not have a quota for the species we'd caught, and because we wanted a better quality catch; and I'm not talking a few boxes/tonnes of fish...

One way I see whereby we could eliminate the discards is to pay fishermen a precentage of the value of the overcatch, i.e. if they have no quota for cod, and they land 3 boxes which sell @ €100 per box, then that fisherman gets 1/3 or €100. The 3 boxes are taken off another boats quota, who then get the other €200, but have incurred no expenses to earn it. When only 5% of the overall quota is left, then no one is allowed to catch cod except as a by catch.

Of course increasing the mesh-size of the nets, and reducing the size and power of the boats would be hugely beneficial too.

Kerikosan

Signed up! thanks for the link!