The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: Barman on November 21, 2007, 06:41:57 AM
-
The UK fishing industry is warning it faces ruin because of EU quotas which result in thousands of tonnes of dead fish being dumped back into the sea.
It says fishing crews often continue catching large amounts of fish such as cod by accident after exceeding quotas - and have no option but to dump them.
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7102241.stm)
Apart from all the other stories of incompetence this one incensed me yesterday…
Basically, because the EU can’t agree on reasonable quotas or set-asides fishermen have to dump 40-60% of the fish they catch because they are of the wrong type. they basically catch them, let them die on deck and then throw them overboard again…
We’re talking about millions of fish, thousands of tonnes…
And the UK has the nerve to criticise Japan for catching and eating whales?
-
I saw that on the news yesterday and my first thought is why don't they throw them back as soon as they catch them rather than leaving it until they're almost back in port. Some might survive then.
I must have missed something confused:
Still, the seagulls were getting fat.
-
I also think this is ludicrous.
Instead of dumping them at sea at least bring them ashore and dump them in charity bins, where they can be used to make Farepak fish fingers or school dinners.
-
I hate fish evil:
The more they kill the less likely you are to be offered any to eat. Whooppee lol:
-
I hate fish evil:
The more they kill the less likely you are to be offered any to eat. Whooppee lol:
rubschin:
-
I like fish.
The more they kill and bring ashore, the more likely there is some for me to eat.
Sod the seagulls. (ST excepted of course)
-
Wot he said!
-
I like fish.
The more they kill and bring ashore, the more likely there is some for me to eat.
Sod the seagulls. (ST excepted of course)
Thats your Christmas dinner sorted then DS - Two Tonnes of pungent, stinking, bone filled, mercury laden, fish complete with death stares is on it's way lol:
-
It was all holding together until you mentioned death stares. We all know it has less to do with health concerns and all to do with their eyes, watching you, eat them. eveilgrin:
-
It was all holding together until you mentioned death stares. We all know it has less to do with health concerns and all to do with their eyes, watching you, eat them. eveilgrin:
I understand it is the same with fish. scared2:
-
It was all holding together until you mentioned death stares. We all know it has less to do with health concerns and all to do with their eyes, watching you, eat them. eveilgrin:
I understand it is the same with fish. scared2:
drumroll:
point: @ Wenchy
-
I don't get it.
redface:
-
I don't get it.
redface:
point:
-
I don't get it.
redface:
point:
One shouldn't mock the afflicted. sad24:
-
I don't get it.
redface:
point:
One shouldn't mock the afflicted. sad24:
point: point:
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
-
Think death throes.
I do every day.
-
As do many of us DS, mostly about other people though. whistle:
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
hardly the point tho... noooo:
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
hardly the point tho... noooo:
Oh I agree ~ it is a scandal ..... all I'm saying is that throwing them back is not the right option, no matter how quickly it is done.
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
Thank you Snoopy, in that case it's a bloody stupid waste of perfectly good fish.
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
Thank you Snoopy, in that case it's a bloody stupid waste of perfectly good fish.
Unless you are a seagull (getting the thread full circle)
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
Thank you Snoopy, in that case it's a bloody stupid waste of perfectly good fish.
Its an absolute scandal… yet more proof (if more were needed) that the EU can’t be trusted to tie its own shoelaces let alone manage something as complex as this… noooo:
-
Most of the fish are dead by the time the net is emptied as the sudden rise from deep sea pressure as they are yanked up onto the boat means that they will have drowned on route. Yes it is perfectly possible to drown a fish. All that flapping on the deck is not a sign that the fish are capable of living if returned to the sea. Think death throes.
Thank you Snoopy, in that case it's a bloody stupid waste of perfectly good fish.
Its an absolute scandal… yet more proof (if more were needed) that the EU can’t be trusted to tie its own shoelaces let alone manage something as complex as this… noooo:
Complex?? ::)
-
Hardly complex. If fish is caught bring it back and sell it. What is complex about that?
-
Hardly complex. If fish is caught bring it back and sell it. What is complex about that?
Thank you for spelling it out on my behalf.
-
Hardly complex. If fish is caught bring it back and sell it. What is complex about that?
Banghead
Managing fish stocks... ::)
-
Much as I hate to agree with Greenpeace ~ The answer is to designate large areas (several hundreds of square miles) of the North Sea as "National Parks" and not permit fishing in those areas. This creates safe havens for the fish stocks and can be easily monitored by satellite and enforced by the Royal Navy.
-
Much as I hate to agree with Greenpeace ~ The answer is to designate large (several hundreds of square miles) of the North Sea as "National Parks" and not permit fishing in those areas. This creates safe havens for the fish stocks and can be easily monitored by satellite and enforced by the Royal Navy.
See that makes sense to me.
-
Rocket Science it ain't.
-
Much as I hate to agree with Greenpeace ~ The answer is to designate large areas (several hundreds of square miles) of the North Sea as "National Parks" and not permit fishing in those areas. This creates safe havens for the fish stocks and can be easily monitored by satellite and enforced by the Royal Navy.
Agreed...
-
I am no expert on fish, but I think a few tens of thousands of square miles are needed because they move about quite a lot and training them to respect boundaries is not easy.
A bit like the Spanish fishermen.
-
That was the point DS. The fish need no training (yes I see that was a Darwin funny) and any caught outside of the designated areas would be fair game. There are plenty of fish really just a bloody stupid quota system to "preserve" stocks. The size of the "Parks" would need to be considerable but since the EU virtually control the whole North Sea it cannot be beyond their wit to work it out and each member country would contribute to the naval presence necessary to enforce the scheme. It's better than having ships tied up in English ports for 9 months of the year whilst the Spanish catch the fish, or throwing back dead fish that have already been caught. Even the fishermen agree that it is the best answer.
-
Sorted then.
A big undersea fence to keep the fish in and sink any Dago pirates that sail within 500 miles of us.
That gets my vote. ;D
-
I rather think the principle is that fish eat ~ well basically, other fish. Thus the shoals will go where the best feeding is to be found and that would obviously be where there was no fishing. The whole thing becomes self controlling.
-
Sorted then.
A big undersea fence to keep the fish in and sink any Dago pirates that sail within 500 miles of us.
That gets my vote. ;D
An electric fence? rubschin:
-
Frogmen with sticks?
-
::)
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.8mm16mmfilmscollectibles.com%2FVoyageFrogmen2.jpg&hash=b023eefb87423b9972a9d248e0e2a24b659ec891)
-
Frogmen with sticks?
Border collies in midget submarines silly. ::)
-
When I was a kid one of our neighbours had a border collie. It used to round up all the kids in the street, herd us into the owner's drive and shut the gate on us.
It was idiotic!
-
In my previous marriage, when the kids were young, we had a Labrador/Border collie cross. The most biddable dog I have ever owned. She used to round up my kids and the other dog (an Afghan) whenever they got too far in front on our daily walk to the park. I miss that pooch more than the wife I had at the time. sad24:
-
I miss that pooch more than the wife I had at the time. sad24:
rubschin:
At what point did you start to see yourself as a dog called Snoopy?
-
Peanuts Cartoons as drawn by Schultz epitomise much of the way I see life and the hand I have been dealt ~ Tho' I perhaps see myself more as the Charlie Brown character but then someone else has that name and accompanying avatar on GOM. Over there I used my real name because Charlie Brown was taken and I felt that Snoopy would connect me with him in people's minds but when we started here I felt able to make the change so Snoopy (The Resident Pub Hound) seemed the obvious choice. Over time I have enjoyed being Snoopy more and more and it does enable me to have some fun and games with people. ..... That is the serious answer to your "serious" question.
The other answer, in the best traditions of internet forums (fora?) is "Wha' 'sit to do wiv you anyway Huh?"
And allowing that your question was not really seeking an answer (................................................) eeek:
-
surrender:
-
I should think so too.
Expecting me to be anything other than pedantic (Pendantic) when I am in "Editor" mode. ::)