Latest proposals on fisheries quotas

Scofflaw · 28-09-2011 02:21PM #1

Latest proposals on fisheries quotas:

Irish fishing opportunities - Atlantic and North Sea

The European Commission presented today its first proposal for 2012 fishing opportunities for certain stocks in the Atlantic and the North Sea. Based on scientific advice the total allowable catch (TAC) for 9 stocks (certain stocks of cod, anglerfish, herring, haddock, hake, sole, megrim and Norway lobster) could be increased.

For cod in the West of Scotland, the Irish Sea and the Kattegat, the Commission proposes that no fishing takes place in 2012, given the poor state of these stocks. Also the Commission proposes a TAC reduction for 53 further stocks.The proposed changes would amount to an overall reduction in TACs (by weight) of 11% compared to 2011. The Commission's goal is to set TACs at science-based levels which help recover the stocks and make fisheries sustainable in the long term.

Maria Damanaki, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, said: "our proposal's cornerstones are long-term management of stocks and reliable scientific data to base our decisions on, in line with our proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. This reform will deliver a fisheries policy fit for the future, based on viable fish stocks which will assure fishermen a decent income."

The proposed catch limits are based on the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Stakeholders were also consulted on the basis of the Commission's Consultation document from May (IP/11/638).

The Commission's ultimate aim is that all stocks are fished at sustainable levels, the so-called Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), by 2015 â€“ a commitment that the EU made to the international community, and which is also a key pillar of the proposed CFP reform. To help achieve MSY by 2015, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has started to frame its scientific advice with this goal in mind, whenever possible. Also, multi-annual management plans are being put in place for all major commercial stocks. Stocks managed in this way tend to fare better than those subject to short-term decision-making.

The cod moratorium seems unlikely to actually happen - more likely that the national fisheries ministers will convince themselves that the scientific advice is over-cautious, and go with only reducing quotas. Still, we'll see.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Birdnuts · 01-10-2011 06:48PM

Hard to have much confidence in this given the appalling record of the EU in this area - not to mention the shamefull giveaway of our own stocks:(

Scofflaw · 01-10-2011 10:54PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hard to have much confidence in this given the appalling record of the EU in this area - not to mention the shamefull giveaway of our own stocks:(

The EU doesn't manage the allocation of quotas, though - that's settled by the fisheries ministers. As to our stocks, we get more out of our waters than we did before we joined the EU, and the state of the Irish fishing industry isn't any worse than when we joined - employment is about the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Capt'n Midnight · 02-10-2011 12:16PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

the state of the Irish fishing industry isn't any worse than when we joined - employment is about the same.

Considering that fish are a finite resource and trawlers have improved vastly this is just scary.

We can't continue to employ the same number of fishermen if we use more efficient trawlers. By efficient I mean that they are capable of hoovering up a shoal of fish with less manpower than before.

An extreme example of this is the Atlantic Dawn (now the Dutch Annelies Ilena)with a crew of about 60.
On each trip it could take the same amount of fish as seven or eight thousand local fishermen catch in a year. So over a year each fishing job created on that ship means about one thousand jobs lost elsewhere.

You can't keep the same number of jobs harvesting a fixed resource if you keep having productivity gains !

http://www.climatechange.ie/features_articles17.html

Closer to home
Figures for 2010 - note that for many species we didn't catch the quota. I don't know it if this is because the fish weren't there or no one tried.
http://sfpa-ie.access.secure-ssl-servers.biz/index.php?q=quota-catch-2010
Total quota 183,677 tonnes
Total landed ~168,281 (this doesn't include discards though)

The Alantic Dawn and similar ships can process 300 tonnes of fish per day. Add in down time etc. and the total quota for Ireland could support just two Atlantic Dawn ships (120 crew) if we allowed stocks to build up to a level that was both sustainable and shoals were as plentiful as they were before powered trawlers.

So just to recap.
At a first approximation there are just 120* sustainable jobs in offshore fisheries in Ireland. Since the processing takes place on board this would also number would include many of the on shore jobs too.

*Obviously this number would be more if they are spending less than 75% of their time at sea. But not much more.

easychair · 04-10-2011 11:22AM

My understanding is that much of the fish which is caught must, by law, be dumped back into the sea, dead, by law.

The waste is horrific, and the laws that force fishermen to do this, ridiculous.

It's true that fishermen are not the best to decide how to conserve fish stocks (Ireland used to have the richest herring fisheries in the world, until they were fished out).

djpbarry · 04-10-2011 05:19PM

easychair wrote: »

My understanding is that much of the fish which is caught must, by law, be dumped back into the sea, dead, by law.

No, it is not required by law that a certain percentage of the catch must be dumped. Fishermen are allowed land a certain quota. Sometimes, catch sizes are reduced prior to landing through dumping, so the quota is not exceeded and fines imposed. If a catch does not exceed the stipulated quota, then no dumping is required.

Macha · 04-10-2011 05:55PM

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it is not required by law that a certain percentage of the catch must be dumped. Fishermen are allowed land a certain quota. Sometimes, catch sizes are reduced prior to landing through dumping, so the quota is not exceeded and fines imposed. If a catch does not exceed the stipulated quota, then no dumping is required.

This also depends on the species quota. If more indiscriminate types of gear are used, it's more likely that species for which the fishermen have no quota will be caught & thrown overboard as by-catch.

easychair · 04-10-2011 07:21PM

Macha wrote: »

This also depends on the species quota. If more indiscriminate types of gear are used, it's more likely that species for which the fishermen have no quota will be caught & thrown overboard as by-catch.

Not only is it likely, that's what has been happing for years, and continues to happen.

Talk to any commercial fishermen, and they will tell you that no matter what nets are used, or what type of gear is used, they still end up having to dump tons and tons of perfectly good fish back to sea, dead, to comply with the conservation rules.

The current system is a form of bureaucratic madness, and does not meet the goal of conservation, but ends up dumping tons and tons of perfectly good dead fish.

djpbarry · 04-10-2011 07:40PM

easychair wrote: »

Talk to any commercial fishermen, and they will tell you that no matter what nets are used, or what type of gear is used, they still end up having to dump tons and tons of perfectly good fish back to sea...

Can we put a figure on "tons and tons"? If any one fishing boat is dumping "tons and tons" of fish on a regular basis, then I would suggest the crew consider alternative careers, because they're clearly not very good fishermen.

easychair wrote: »

The current system is a form of bureaucratic madness...

Seems pretty straightforward to me - don't catch too much fish.

Macha · 04-10-2011 08:04PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Can we put a figure on "tons and tons"? If any one fishing boat is dumping "tons and tons" of fish on a regular basis, then I would suggest the crew consider alternative careers, because they're clearly not very good fishermen.

Seems pretty straightforward to me - don't catch too much fish.

It is a huge amount. This isn't scientific by any stretch but the Fish Fight campaign estimates half of all fish caught in the North Sea is discarded. The EU has come in for some angry criticism from Norway because of discards.

easychair - there is a lot that the fishing industry could do if so inclined. The type of gear matters a lot. One main distinction is between active and passive gear. Active gear is, well active, ie it is dragged along, often along the sea floor (otherwise known as bottom trawling). Passive gear is placed in a suitable location and left for a period of time. Lobster pots would fall into this category. Fishing boats are large investments so funds will probably have to be provided to support any sizeable shift in gear.

djpbarry · 04-10-2011 09:04PM

Macha wrote: »

It is a huge amount. This isn't scientific by any stretch but the Fish Fight campaign estimates half of all fish caught in the North Sea is discarded. The EU has come in for some angry criticism from Norway because of discards.

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-10-2011 09:54PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Can we put a figure on "tons and tons"? If any one fishing boat is dumping "tons and tons" of fish on a regular basis, then I would suggest the crew consider alternative careers, because they're clearly not very good fishermen.
Seems pretty straightforward to me - don't catch too much fish.

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/28032007_en.htm

A 2005 study by the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that discards in the North Atlantic amounted to 1.332 million tonnes a year - 13% of catches.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/120&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The authors found that in 1998, the Dutch beam trawl fishery discarded fish of marketable species with a future value of €160 million, or 70% of the value of their 1998 landings. UK North Sea whitefish trawlers discarded cod, haddock and whiting worth € 75 million in 1999, equivalent to 42% of the value of their landings. And the French Nephrops fishery discarded between 20 and 45% of the catch by weight according to species in 1997, representing fish worth nearly 100% of annual landings.

In other words, in those fisheries which have the worst records for discarding, the practice can destroy almost as much economic value as the fishery is able to create.

...
In order not to encourage new 'targeted' fisheries developing, it is important that the individual vessels do not receive the income from any such sales of by-catch. A small fraction of that income might be paid to the vessel, however, to cover handling expenses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12598660

"The reasons for discarding are EU and national legislation, not well suited for EU waters, where the majority of catches are from mixed fisheries, as well as financial interests of the fishing industry to keep only more valuable fish on board," it says.

Currently, fishermen have to discard fish when they exceed their quota for that species, or when they net fish that are too young or too small.

Ms Damanaki suggests:

= controlling "fishing effort", by limiting the amount of time boats can spend at sea and the places where they can fish
= counting all fish landed against quotas
= closing "mixed fisheries" when the maximum quota of one species in it has been caught
= expanding the use of CCTV, observers, electronic logbooks and monitoring of ports

Although conservation groups are keen to see discarding end, they also have concerns that any new regulatory framework must not open up a free-for-all.

controlling "fishing effort", by limiting the amount of time boats can spend at sea and the places where they can fish I like this idea, simply because of the waste of resources chasing fish that aren't there

Maybe we should just invest in more wind turbines as they provide refuges for some fish.

easychair · 04-10-2011 09:55PM

Macha wrote: »

It is a huge amount. This isn't scientific by any stretch but the Fish Fight campaign estimates half of all fish caught in the North Sea is discarded. The EU has come in for some angry criticism from Norway because of discards.

easychair - there is a lot that the fishing industry could do if so inclined. The type of gear matters a lot. One main distinction is between active and passive gear. Active gear is, well active, ie it is dragged along, often along the sea floor (otherwise known as bottom trawling). Passive gear is placed in a suitable location and left for a period of time. Lobster pots would fall into this category. Fishing boats are large investments so funds will probably have to be provided to support any sizeable shift in gear.

The estimate that half of all fish caught in nets is dumped back to the sea, dead, because of the rules, is supported by The Fish Fight campaign here in the UK (to which I am a member).

The problem is that it's not possible to have nets which only catch, for example, mackerel, and let go other species.

It's simply criminal that 50% of all fish caught by trawling is killed, and then is discarded, because of the rules.

For anyone interested, this is an interesting, and instructive, film. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/hughs-fish-fight/4od

Scofflaw · 05-10-2011 03:55PM

easychair wrote: »

Not only is it likely, that's what has been happing for years, and continues to happen.

Talk to any commercial fishermen, and they will tell you that no matter what nets are used, or what type of gear is used, they still end up having to dump tons and tons of perfectly good fish back to sea, dead, to comply with the conservation rules.

The current system is a form of bureaucratic madness, and does not meet the goal of conservation, but ends up dumping tons and tons of perfectly good dead fish.

It should be added that fishermen also dump already caught fish in order to make room for more valuable species caught later.

And, to be fair to the bureaucrats, the problem is hard to solve. My personal preference is for quotas tradeable at sea and a limit on fishing effort to make it worth heading for home with whatever you picked up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair · 05-10-2011 04:28PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It should be added that fishermen also dump already caught fish in order to make room for more valuable species caught later.

And, to be fair to the bureaucrats, the problem is hard to solve. My personal preference is for quotas tradeable at sea and a limit on fishing effort to make it worth heading for home with whatever you picked up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've never come across the practice of which you speak, and virtually all the fishermen I have spoken to are heartbroken at the waste of having to dump perfectly good dead fish back to the sea.

Sure, the problem is hard to solve, but dumping good fish dead back to the sea seems to be exacerbating the problem, and doing the opposite of solving it.

djpbarry · 05-10-2011 07:10PM

easychair wrote: »

I've never come across the practice of which you speak, and virtually all the fishermen I have spoken to are heartbroken at the waste of having to dump perfectly good dead fish back to the sea.

First of all, unless you've conducted an extensive survey of what goes on when fishing vessels are out at sea and published the results somewhere for us all to see, then telling us you've never come across a practice among the fishermen you've spoken to isn't terribly informative. Secondly, as I alluded to above, I find it extremely hard to believe that there's absolutely nothing that fishermen could be doing differently.

Scofflaw · 05-10-2011 09:28PM

easychair wrote: »

I've never come across the practice of which you speak, and virtually all the fishermen I have spoken to are heartbroken at the waste of having to dump perfectly good dead fish back to the sea.

Sure, the problem is hard to solve, but dumping good fish dead back to the sea seems to be exacerbating the problem, and doing the opposite of solving it.

The practice is called 'high-grading'. It's not exactly something unknown.

The bureaucratic system in place does cause dumping, and that needs to change, but quotas are only one of a series of incentives that need to be lined up to maximise conservation and fishing interests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair · 06-10-2011 06:39AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The practice is called 'high-grading'. It's not exactly something unknown.

The bureaucratic system in place does cause dumping, and that needs to change, but quotas are only one of a series of incentives that need to be lined up to maximise conservation and fishing interests.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We all know the current system is madness, and doesn't conserve anything. In fact, it does the opposite to what it is trying to achieve.

I don't know what the answer is, but i's certainly not the current madness.

djpbarry · 06-10-2011 08:46AM

easychair wrote: »

I don't know what the answer is, but i's certainly not the current madness.

The current system is "madness", but you can't put forward any solutions?

Scofflaw · 06-10-2011 08:53AM

easychair wrote: »

We all know the current system is madness, and doesn't conserve anything. In fact, it does the opposite to what it is trying to achieve.

I don't know what the answer is, but i's certainly not the current madness.

The current system doesn't do the opposite of what it's trying to achieve, though. It attempts to limit fishing, and does so. That it fails to prevent over-fishing isn't a failure of having quotas, but a failure in how they're set - which is politically, by people who have a vested interest in pushing the quota as high as possible. And discards, even of 13%, aren't equivalent to unrestricted fishing - and would happen to some extent even in the absence of quotas, as a result of high-grading.

The system is inadequate, but hardly madness.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair · 06-10-2011 12:02PM

The current system's goal is to attempt to conserve fish stocks. While it does attempt to limit fishing through a quota system, it also, by law, makes fishermen dump back at sea, perfectly good fish, dead. Teh Fish Fight campaign estimates that 50% of all fish caught is dumped back to sea, dead.

You call that inadequate, I call it madness, let's call the whole thing off!

djpbarry · 06-10-2011 12:45PM

easychair wrote: »

The current system's goal is to attempt to conserve fish stocks. While it does attempt to limit fishing through a quota system, it also, by law, makes fishermen dump back at sea, perfectly good fish, dead.

As said above, that’s disingenuous. Fishermen are forced to adhere to quotas, not necessarily to dump. I’m not saying that the CFP cannot be improved, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the fishing industry cannot do anything to reduce the amount of fish dumped.

easychair wrote: »

You call that inadequate, I call it madness...

So let’s hear your proposals then?

skafish · 27-11-2011 10:31PM

easychair wrote: »

The current system's goal is to attempt to conserve fish stocks. While it does attempt to limit fishing through a quota system, it also, by law, makes fishermen dump back at sea, perfectly good fish, dead. Teh Fish Fight campaign estimates that 50% of all fish caught is dumped back to sea, dead.

You call that inadequate, I call it madness, let's call the whole thing off!

The fish fight campaign, while laudable in its intentions, is nieve in its enactment.
High grading is a fact of life in most commercial trawl fisheries worldwide (both midwater and bottom trawling). This is the name given to dumping perfectly good fish caught within size and quota limits to make room for larger fish of the same species, which will earn a higher price per tonne.

And the fishing segment in which it is most common is the offshore pelagic fishery- the mackerel fishing so lauded by the fish fight. What happens in the pelagic fishery is that two large (anywhere between 80 and 120m) trawlers pull a net between and behind them. These nets can easily catch several hundred tonnes in one tow, frequently lasting no longer than a couple of hours.

The fish is then pumped into on board tanks filled with chilled seawater.

However, some sizes of fish are worth more than others (usually, the larger the fish, the better the price, but not always).

If a pair of trawler skippers think the fish in the net are not valuable enough, they open the cod end before pumping, and release the fish back into the water. 90% of these will die, according to ICES.

It also happens on occasion that the trawlers come across a shoal of better size fish. If that happens, they simply pump out the (now dead) fish from the tanks, and catch the newer, more valuable shoal.:mad::mad:

The other main issue with disgarding is shellfish. Most shellfish are caught in relativley small numbers, and measured individually. Those too small to sell legally are disarded.

The difference is, they are usually still alive going back into the water and have a survival rate in excess of 95%:D

easychair · 28-11-2011 08:28AM

skafish wrote: »

The fish fight campaign, while laudable in its intentions, is nieve in its enactment.

It may well be, however I applaud them for bringing what is a terrible practice to more public attention.

skafish wrote: »

This is the name given to dumping perfectly good fish caught within size and quota limits to make room for larger fish of the same species,

Are you saying that there is not enough physcial room on a trawler for all the fish they catch? And that no perfectly good fish are dumped back at sea due to the regulations?

My understanding is that high grading does happen, but is largely restricted to those enormous factory ships which stay out at sea for extended periods, often weeks.

It sounds as if you have no knowledge of the smaller trawlers which make up virtually all the Irish and UK fishing fleet, stay out only for a day or two, and often come back to port with less that a third of their capacity taken up, so there is no need for them to make room for anything, as their problem is that they have far too much room!

Scofflaw · 28-11-2011 09:08AM

easychair wrote: »

It may well be, however I applaud them for bringing what is a terrible practice to more public attention.

Are you saying that there is not enough physcial room on a trawler for all the fish they catch? And that no perfectly good fish are dumped back at sea due to the regulations?

My understanding is that high grading does happen, but is largely restricted to those enormous factory ships which stay out at sea for extended periods, often weeks.

It sounds as if you have no knowledge of the smaller trawlers which make up virtually all the Irish and UK fishing fleet, stay out only for a day or two, and often come back to port with less that a third of their capacity taken up, so there is no need for them to make room for anything, as their problem is that they have far too much room!

It's nice to see such very close adherence to the IFO line!

But IFO chairman Ebbie Sheehan insisted the smaller family-run operations are not overfishing. He accused the European freezer trawlers of "a disgusting amount of discarding".

"We are all being tarred with the same brush. Yes, there is discarding and overfishing going on but it’s not the small guys who are doing it. It’s the supertrawlers," he said.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/mackerel-minced-and-dumped-in-irish-waters-147010.html#ixzz1ezSEA7PA

amused,
Scofflaw

easychair · 28-11-2011 09:34AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's nice to see such very close adherence to the IFO line!

I don't see anything in the IFO atatement about High Grading? Did you leave that bit of their statement out? Are you trying to tar me with the brush of innuemdo that I am in some way a spokesman for the IFO? Shame on you if you are.

While the IFO is correct that, of course, the larger boats catch more fish and consequently also discard more fish, even the smaller boats are forced to discard large amounts of fish (well over 50% of their total catch according to Fish Fight), due to crazy EU laws.

No amount of innuendo and trying to smear me will take from that fact. :-)

djpbarry · 28-11-2011 09:40AM

easychair wrote: »

While the IFO is correct that, of course, the larger boats catch more fish and consequently also discard more fish, even the smaller boats are forced to discard large amounts of fish (well over 50% of their total catch according to Fish Fight), due to crazy EU laws.

No amount of innuendo and trying to smear me will take from that fact. :-)

Maybe we could see some evidence in support of this "fact"?

Scofflaw · 28-11-2011 11:50AM

easychair wrote: »

I don't see anything in the IFO atatement about High Grading? Did you leave that bit of their statement out? Are you trying to tar me with the brush of innuemdo that I am in some way a spokesman for the IFO? Shame on you if you are.

While the IFO is correct that, of course, the larger boats catch more fish and consequently also discard more fish, even the smaller boats are forced to discard large amounts of fish (well over 50% of their total catch according to Fish Fight), due to crazy EU laws.

No amount of innuendo and trying to smear me will take from that fact. :-)

I'm just amused by how closely your position mirrors the IFO statement, that's all! I'm not claiming you're working for them or anything like that.

Either way, as djpbarry says, some evidence - either from you or the IFO - in support of this "fact" would be nice. Necessary, even, to establish it as a fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair · 28-11-2011 04:24PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm just amused by how closely your position mirrors the IFO statement, that's all! I'm not claiming you're working for them or anything like that.

Either way, as djpbarry says, some evidence - either from you or the IFO - in support of this "fact" would be nice. Necessary, even, to establish it as a fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its curious you consider my position on discards mirrors that of the IFO on High Grading. While it's fine that you are amused, that you go to the trouble of stating it here would seem to have a purpose other than telling us of your emotions.

I'm not sure how reliable evidence would be from the IFO, as they have a vested interest in the position. The figure of 50% comes from the Fish First campaign, which claims it is from figures provided by the EU.

The problem is that in a mixed fishery where many different fish live together, fishermen cannot control the species that they catch.

Fishing for one species often means catching another, and if people don’t want them or fishermen are not allowed to land them, the only option is to throw them overboard. The vast majority of these discarded fish will die.

In any case, if it's 20% or 70% it's still, at least in part, the result of laws which penalise fishermen if they land more than their quota, and leads to the enormous, and pointless, waste, of having to throw back into the sea perfectly good fish, dead.

28-11-2011 07:22PM

The CFP is and always has been a joke, as it is anything but common to all. The main reason why Norway opted not to become part of the EEC/EU. Smart people.

One Scottish ex damersal trawler owner who sold his boat told me he liked the system when he fished and landed his quota in Norway whereby all bycatch was set aside and brought ashore without penalties (bearing in mind in Ireland you will not only be penalised, it is now actually a criminal offence). The logic being that at least the Norwegans have some real data of bycatch/discard tonnage to base conservation practice and quotas on.

Also been pointed out to me that the large factory pelagic trawlers catch no more than the fresh fish vessels which land every few days and have the same quota. Yes of course they stay a sea for, about a month but are often fishing only a portion of this. This being dictated by their daily freezing capability and storage capacity. They generally use a very much smaller net as they catch what they need to feed their factory (say 100 tonnes/day plus or minus). If their fresh storage tanks are full (2/3 days production) they will not be fishing.

Scofflaw · 28-11-2011 09:02PM

easychair wrote: »

Its curious you consider my position on discards mirrors that of the IFO on High Grading. While it's fine that you are amused, that you go to the trouble of stating it here would seem to have a purpose other than telling us of your emotions.

I'm not sure how reliable evidence would be from the IFO, as they have a vested interest in the position. The figure of 50% comes from the Fish First campaign, which claims it is from figures provided by the EU.

The problem is that in a mixed fishery where many different fish live together, fishermen cannot control the species that they catch.

Fishing for one species often means catching another, and if people don’t want them or fishermen are not allowed to land them, the only option is to throw them overboard. The vast majority of these discarded fish will die.

In any case, if it's 20% or 70% it's still, at least in part, the result of laws which penalise fishermen if they land more than their quota, and leads to the enormous, and pointless, waste, of having to throw back into the sea perfectly good fish, dead.

True, but you're not exactly suggesting an alternative here. At the end of the day, the problem with the CFP isn't that it tries to limit fishing, but that quotas are a poor instrument for doing so, quite aside from the fact that those quotas are set by politicians. Unfortunately, any other mechanism needs to be sold to the member states before it can become part of the process, and almost inevitably somebody will have an objection.

The CFP might be better replaced by a multilateral market system, but even that wouldn't change many of the issues associated with it, which are common to virtually every fishery worldwide.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skafish · 28-11-2011 10:17PM

Are you saying that there is not enough physcial room on a trawler for all the fish they catch? And that no perfectly good fish are dumped back at sea due to the regulations?

My understanding is that high grading does happen, but is largely restricted to those enormous factory ships which stay out at sea for extended periods, often weeks.

It sounds as if you have no knowledge of the smaller trawlers which make up virtually all the Irish and UK fishing fleet, stay out only for a day or two, and often come back to port with less that a third of their capacity taken up, so there is no need for them to make room for anything, as their problem is that they have far too much room!

I'm not saying that smaller trawlers don't have physical room. They tend to be limited by quotas. So if, for example, a trawler has a quota of 1 tonne of (eg) cod for a month, they crew will retain the larger, more valuable fish, even if it means dumping smaller ones. In practice, however, trawlers and their crews often take a chance, and land both, taking a chance on not being caught by inspectors of the sea fisheries protection agency.

The practice also occurs, as you correctly state, on large, offshore vessels, pretty much as I described in my previous post. The worst offenders, according to many fishermen I have spoken to, are the factory trawlers you mention. Ironically, it is these very vessels, and their catch, which are so lauded by the fish fight. They are also commonly "approved" by the Marine Stewardship Council, which as I am sure you are aware, is meerly a marketing arm of the well known multi national conglomerate, Unilever.

As to whether or not I know what I am talking about, I have been a fisheries biologist for over a decade, and paid my way through college working on various fishing boats.:)

easychair · 29-11-2011 08:40AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but you're not exactly suggesting an alternative here. At the end of the day, the problem with the CFP isn't that it tries to limit fishing, but that quotas are a poor instrument for doing so, quite aside from the fact that those quotas are set by politicians. Unfortunately, any other mechanism needs to be sold to the member states before it can become part of the process, and almost inevitably somebody will have an objection.

The CFP might be better replaced by a multilateral market system, but even that wouldn't change many of the issues associated with it, which are common to virtually every fishery worldwide.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are right, I am not suggesting an alternative except to not throw back perfectly good dead fish into the sea.

If it's an alternative to throwing back 50% ( or even 10%) of the fish caught dead, or using them in a more productive way, or not catching them in the first place, I'd say the last two are good alternatives.

Scofflaw · 29-11-2011 07:03PM

easychair wrote: »

You are right, I am not suggesting an alternative except to not throw back perfectly good dead fish into the sea.

If it's an alternative to throwing back 50% ( or even 10%) of the fish caught dead, or using them in a more productive way, or not catching them in the first place, I'd say the last two are good alternatives.

Those aren't alternatives. Those are desirable outcomes which everyone would like to reach in a system that simultaneously protects the fisheries and the fishermen's livelihoods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair · 30-11-2011 07:48AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Those aren't alternatives. Those are desirable outcomes which everyone would like to reach in a system that simultaneously protects the fisheries and the fishermen's livelihoods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, its one alternative. The alternative to discarding up to 50% of all fish caught is not to discard it. Thats an alternative and a desirable outcome.

Scofflaw · 30-11-2011 11:37AM

easychair wrote: »

No, its one alternative. The alternative to discarding up to 50% of all fish caught is not to discard it. Thats an alternative and a desirable outcome.

Sigh. No. Simply saying "the fish should not be discarded" is not an alternative to the current system. It's a statement of preferred outcome with no suggestion as to how to get there, which is completely useless to anyone, because there isn't anyone who wants to have to discard fish. In other words, your preferred outcome is everyone's preferred outcome, and the contribution you've made to the debate is absolutely zero.

Do you genuinely not understand that?

regards,
Scofflaw

easychair · 30-11-2011 12:53PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. No. Simply saying "the fish should not be discarded" is not an alternative to the current system. It's a statement of preferred outcome with no suggestion as to how to get there, which is completely useless to anyone, because there isn't anyone who wants to have to discard fish. In other words, your preferred outcome is everyone's preferred outcome, and the contribution you've made to the debate is absolutely zero.

Do you genuinely not understand that?

regards,
Scofflaw

Double Sigh. I'm not proposing an alternative to the system, but am proposing an alternative to throwing lots of perfectly good dead fish back into the sea. And that would be a great alternatgive until the system sorts itself out. It's quite possible to spot a problem, and suggest an alternative, without having to wait until "the system" is sorted out.

Scofflaw · 30-11-2011 12:57PM

easychair wrote: »

Double Sigh. I'm not proposing an alternative to the system, but am proposing an alternative to throwing lots of perfectly good dead fish back into the sea. And that would be a great alternatgive until the system sorts itself out. It's quite possible to spot a problem, and suggest an alternative, without having to wait until "the system" is sorted out.

In fact it's quite difficult. You think it's easy because you apparently don't know what "suggesting an alternative" actually means. You think it means stating the outcome you want and saying "there's my alternative".

This is clearly a complete waste of my time, to a degree unusual even for boards.ie.

regards,
Scofflaw

easychair · 30-11-2011 01:21PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact it's quite difficult. You think it's easy because you apparently don't know what "suggesting an alternative" actually means. You think it means stating the outcome you want and saying "there's my alternative".

This is clearly a complete waste of my time, to a degree unusual even for boards.ie.

regards,
Scofflaw

When you asked initially

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but you're not exactly suggesting an alternative here.

you might have mentioned that you meant an alternative system, and not an alternative as a solution.

djpbarry · 30-11-2011 03:28PM

easychair wrote: »

I'm not proposing an alternative to the system, but am proposing an alternative to throwing lots of perfectly good dead fish back into the sea. And that would be a great alternatgive until the system sorts itself out.

So your "alternative" is that the desired outcome be obtained before the system be reconfigured to obtain said outcome? That's not a meaningful alternative in any sense of the word.

Scofflaw · 30-11-2011 03:56PM

easychair wrote: »

When you asked initially

you might have mentioned that you meant an alternative system, and not an alternative as a solution.

I think it would be obvious, to most people anyway. Tell me something else while I'm feeling masochistic - do you honestly believe that anybody wants to have a huge amount of fish discarded?

regards,
Scofflaw

easychair · 30-11-2011 07:44PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it would be obvious, to most people anyway. Tell me something else while I'm feeling masochistic - do you honestly believe that anybody wants to have a huge amount of fish discarded?

regards,
Scofflaw

I can't imagine anyone does want any fish discarded. It wasn't obvious to me, mainly because I don't think in terms of systems, and in part of my life I solve problems.

There was a story about Albert Reynolds when he was minister for what was then, I think, known as the P & T.

Apparantly, he paid a visit to the Sheriff St sorting office, only to find a large window broken, the cold winter wind howling through, and he asked why the window wasn't repaired? The answer was that the system demanded that the request to fix it had to go through the right channels, and they had so far been waiting weeks and still it wasn't repaired. He was told they couldn't repair it themselves as, if when they eventually came to fix it and it had been fixed already in an unauthorised manner, there would be hell to pay.

So he suggested that he would pay himself to have it fixed, and when whoever it was eventually came along to repair it, he suggested they broke it before he got past reception.

Which is what happened, and the workers in the sorting office had weeks in comfort, which they would not have had if they waited the additional weeks for the system to get it done.

It's obvious from your posts here that you are an intelligent man, and not everyone will think in the same way you do, not will what is obvious to you necessarily be obvious to others, as sometimes our brains work in different ways.

Of course it's necessary to change they system, but in the meantime abandoning discards seems to me a good move until the system gets changed.

Scofflaw · 01-12-2011 02:00AM

easychair wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone does want any fish discarded. It wasn't obvious to me, mainly because I don't think in terms of systems, and in part of my life I solve problems.

There was a story about Albert Reynolds when he was minister for what was then, I think, known as the P & T.

Apparantly, he paid a visit to the Sheriff St sorting office, only to find a large window broken, the cold winter wind howling through, and he asked why the window wasn't repaired? The answer was that the system demanded that the request to fix it had to go through the right channels, and they had so far been waiting weeks and still it wasn't repaired. He was told they couldn't repair it themselves as, if when they eventually came to fix it and it had been fixed already in an unauthorised manner, there would be hell to pay.

So he suggested that he would pay himself to have it fixed, and when whoever it was eventually came along to repair it, he suggested they broke it before he got past reception.

Which is what happened, and the workers in the sorting office had weeks in comfort, which they would not have had if they waited the additional weeks for the system to get it done.

It's obvious from your posts here that you are an intelligent man, and not everyone will think in the same way you do, not will what is obvious to you necessarily be obvious to others, as sometimes our brains work in different ways.

Of course it's necessary to change they system, but in the meantime abandoning discards seems to me a good move until the system gets changed.

You can't "abandon" discards, though, because no part of the system mandates discards - they're a by-product of the other bits of the system, specifically the quota system. To prevent there being discards, you have to abandon quotas and allow every vessel to bring in and sell whatever it can catch - and unless you immediately substitute some other system for preventing over-fishing, the result will be a sudden huge surge in fishing, resulting in a massive drop in fish prices, huge damage to the fish stocks, and...a massive amount of discarded fish, through high-grading and dumping of fish that can't be sold at a profit to anyone.

It's always tempting to believe you've cut through the Gordian knot, but it's worth remembering that cutting the Gordian knot produced a lot of bits of string of no use to anyone. You actually can't solve complex problems with simple "solutions" - the apparently pointlessly complex and arcane systems that are there are the result of people learning that the hard way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skafish · 01-12-2011 02:53AM

There are some solutions around. The Norwegian government declined to join the EU in 1987 because of the CFP. they have their own methods for controling fisheries, and they work.

These include real time closure of areas that small/juvenile fish are reported from, days at sea limits and full monitering of all landings.Mind you, they also jail fishermen found to breach of their regulations....

The results are clear.... for 2012, they are increasing quotas for many of the species the EU are reducing, like cod.

There was a report on Intrafish a few weeks back stating the Spanish government are subsising their fleet, and that large sections of the spanish fleet are in recipt of eu grants, despite their owners having been found to have broken the law. If this is true, what hope is there for sustainable fisheries?

djpbarry · 01-12-2011 08:54AM

easychair wrote: »

There was a story about Albert Reynolds when he was minister for what was then, I think, known as the P & T.

Apparantly, he paid a visit to the Sheriff St sorting office, only to find a large window broken ...
...
So he suggested that he would pay himself to have it fixed...
...
Which is what happened, and the workers in the sorting office had weeks in comfort, which they would not have had if they waited the additional weeks for the system to get it done.

That might be a reasonable analogy if, at the time, windows were in short supply and the installation of a window might (a) leave someone elsewhere without a window and/or (b) prevent the spawning of future windows.

easychair · 01-12-2011 01:33PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can't "abandon" discards, though, because no part of the system mandates discards - they're a by-product of the other bits of the system, specifically the quota system. To prevent there being discards, you have to abandon quotas and allow every vessel to bring in and sell whatever it can catch - and unless you immediately substitute some other system for preventing over-fishing, the result will be a sudden huge surge in fishing, resulting in a massive drop in fish prices, huge damage to the fish stocks, and...a massive amount of discarded fish, through high-grading and dumping of fish that can't be sold at a profit to anyone.

It's always tempting to believe you've cut through the Gordian knot, but it's worth remembering that cutting the Gordian knot produced a lot of bits of string of no use to anyone. You actually can't solve complex problems with simple "solutions" - the apparently pointlessly complex and arcane systems that are there are the result of people learning that the hard way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The quota system is supposed to prevent overfishing, but the effect has led to discarding the same amount of fish which is landed.

Consequently, the problem is the quota system, which paradoxically exacerbates the very problem it seeks to solve, and is causing the huge damage to the fish stocks which you mention.

I'm not aware of the system in Norway and which may well serve one country very well, but to try to get agreement from the couintries of the EU seems daunting. However, it might be a good first step.

Another issue to contemplate is to ban fish discards. While not easy to police, a complete ban would , obviously, end discards and help to preserve fish stocks. So long as it could be properly policed, I wonder how this might work?

easychair · 01-12-2011 01:35PM

djpbarry wrote: »

That might be a reasonable analogy if, at the time, windows were in short supply and the installation of a window might (a) leave someone elsewhere without a window and/or (b) prevent the spawning of future windows.

I was talking about the way brains work differently, and I told this story to illustrate that. It never occurred to me that someone else might look at it as if it were an analogy for fishing, which is a perfect illustration as to how our brains work differently!

Scofflaw · 01-12-2011 02:00PM

easychair wrote: »

The quota system is supposed to prevent overfishing, but the effect has led to discarding the same amount of fish which is landed.

Consequently, the problem is the quota system, which paradoxically exacerbates the very problem it seeks to solve, and is causing the huge damage to the fish stocks which you mention.

I'm not aware of the system in Norway and which may well serve one country very well, but to try to get agreement from the couintries of the EU seems daunting. However, it might be a good first step.

Another issue to contemplate is to ban fish discards. While not easy to police, a complete ban would , obviously, end discards and help to preserve fish stocks. So long as it could be properly policed, I wonder how this might work?

More or less every fishing nation uses a quota system of some kind, since there really isn't any other way of limiting catch - and because the available 'fishing power' (in terms of engine size, boat size, fish finders etc) is so enormous, limiting catch is vitally necessary to prevent rapid over-fishing.

On balance, the quota system doesn't exacerbate the problem it seeks to solve - the amount lost as discards still does less damage to the fish stocks than unrestricted fishing. It's just not a perfect solution, but nothing is.

The only realistic way of eliminating discards - and the only way anyone has done it - is making it illegal, and backing that with a comprehensive system of monitoring and surveillance.

It can be done, certainly - Canada has done it (every vessel is required to carry an observer), as has Norway. Other countries have adopted other approaches - New Zealand has made it illegal to discard catch at sea, and allows a fisherman who lands fish for which he has no quota to buy unused quota or be paid 50% of the value by the government. Originally they offered only 10%, but the number of discards was too high.

So there is no system which can simultaneously limit fishing and prevent discards, or at least there doesn't seem to be any. To make a clarification I should have made earlier, you can obviously prevent discards if you try hard enough - in a reductio ad absurdum you could obviously have armed guards on every fishing vessel - but there's no system which seems to simply eliminate discards from happening other than allowing fishermen to catch whatever they like (even that doesn't eliminate high-grading). And that would result in the collapse of most fish stocks in a matter of a few years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CJhaughey · 01-12-2011 02:09PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Closer to home
Figures for 2010 - note that for many species we didn't catch the quota. I don't know it if this is because the fish weren't there or no one tried.
http://sfpa-ie.access.secure-ssl-servers.biz/index.php?q=quota-catch-2010
Total quota 183,677 tonnes
Total landed ~168,281 (this doesn't include discards though)

For many of the stocks that the quota wasn't filled the weather could have been bad, the 2010 seasons Albacore season was terrible, bad weather and a lump of cold water between the Porcupine and Ireland meant the fish never got close to Ireland or schooled up enough to catch effectively.
The Spanish troll fleet also reported a dismal season.

The 2011 albacore season was very good, the quota (reduced from 7000+ tons) was caught in 2 months or less.
Its not a binary equation of the fish are not there or fishermen didn't try.
Fuel, weather, markets all effect the way species are targeted.

easychair · 01-12-2011 07:42PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

More or less every fishing nation uses a quota system of some kind, since there really isn't any other way of limiting catch - and because the available 'fishing power' (in terms of engine size, boat size, fish finders etc) is so enormous, limiting catch is vitally necessary to prevent rapid over-fishing.

On balance, the quota system doesn't exacerbate the problem it seeks to solve - the amount lost as discards still does less damage to the fish stocks than unrestricted fishing. It's just not a perfect solution, but nothing is.

The only realistic way of eliminating discards - and the only way anyone has done it - is making it illegal, and backing that with a comprehensive system of monitoring and surveillance.

It can be done, certainly - Canada has done it (every vessel is required to carry an observer), as has Norway. Other countries have adopted other approaches - New Zealand has made it illegal to discard catch at sea, and allows a fisherman who lands fish for which he has no quota to buy unused quota or be paid 50% of the value by the government. Originally they offered only 10%, but the number of discards was too high.

So there is no system which can simultaneously limit fishing and prevent discards, or at least there doesn't seem to be any. To make a clarification I should have made earlier, you can obviously prevent discards if you try hard enough - in a reductio ad absurdum you could obviously have armed guards on every fishing vessel - but there's no system which seems to simply eliminate discards from happening other than allowing fishermen to catch whatever they like (even that doesn't eliminate high-grading). And that would result in the collapse of most fish stocks in a matter of a few years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

After reading your recent posts, I realise I hadn't thought it through properly, so thanks for highlighting the issues arising.

Doy you know much abour Canada's or New Zealand's success at conserving stocks by the systems they have instigated? I can see that banning discards and keeping quotas ought to have a very positive effect on helping to sustain stocks, but I imagine there are other issues, perhaps for the fishermen.

Latest proposals on fisheries quotas

Comments