Any on see Fish Fight on 4?

nicklouse

get signed up.

http://www.fishfight.net/

cat_with_no_tail

The fact that Ricky "look at me and how amazing I am" Gervais is a supporter has instantly made me not want to support.

I didn't watch it (so feel free to correct me), but:
The reason they get thrown back is because nobody wants them, surely? So by landing them, all fisherman will be doing is creating more land-based waste when they bring them to market and nobody buys them.

bluechair84

would be nice to see a soceity that didn't have so much wastage. No animal can survive by taking everything it sees and giving so little back.

nicklouse

Cat With No Tail wrote:

.

I didn't watch it (so feel free to correct me), but:
The reason they get thrown back is because nobody wants them, surely?

nope nothing to do with that.

the EU say they have to and there is nothing wrong with the fish.

bennett_346

Why does the EU make them put them back :?

Northwind

They have quotas for specific fish. But, once you fill your quota of one sort, you'll keep catching more as you fish for the other ones you're still entitled to catch. But, you're not allowed to land the "extra" so they get thrown over the side, dead. Well intentioned rules fail to survive contact with the world.

bluechair84

Northwind wrote:

Well intentioned rules fail to survive contact with the world.

Well put

bails87

bluechair84 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Well intentioned rules fail to survive contact with the world.

Well put

Yeah, but if the rule was "you can't catch this fish, unless you accidentally do, then you're allowed to keep it because it would be silly to throw it away" then they'd be 'accidentally' catching fish all over the place.

It's a well intentioned rule, and there for a reason, but it just looks bad when perfectly good stuff is being thrown away. But if they were allowed to keep stuff that had been 'accidentally' caught, then they'd just take the mick with it.

phz

bails87 wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Well intentioned rules fail to survive contact with the world.

Well put

Yeah, but if the rule was "you can't catch this fish, unless you accidentally do, then you're allowed to keep it because it would be silly to throw it away" then they'd be 'accidentally' catching fish all over the place.

It's a well intentioned rule, and there for a reason, but it just looks bad when perfectly good stuff is being thrown away. But if they were allowed to keep stuff that had been 'accidentally' caught, then they'd just take the mick with it.

that's why the proposal is basically 'catch all you like - but you're only allowed to fish n days per month / year' - if worked out right shouldn't affect fishermen's income overall but does lead to WAY less wasted fish

(edit - typo)

slainte rob

Anonymous

Cat With No Tail wrote:

The fact that Ricky "look at me and how amazing I am" Gervais is a supporter has instantly made me not want to support.

Se just because some obnoxious bloke supports a good cause, means you cannot possibly support that same cause?
Wow, now there's some curious logic. :roll:

I haven't seen the tv show (didn;t know what it was about until now), but if the rules mean that fishermen throw back half their catch dead, in order to limit the impact on the fish numbers, then isn't it the fishermen who are being dicks, not the rules?
Surely the rules are there to limit over-fishing, but the fishermen do it regardless, then throw them back?

Northwind

No because- as explained up the page- they can still legitimately fish, they're just not allowed to land that specific species. So, let's say you've hit your mackerel quota, you keep fishing because you're still allowed to catch cod. But, while you do that, you'll inevitably catch more mackerel.

The rules are suppose to protect specific species but as you see, they don't work at all- it's ended up with a rule that stops them from being landed but still sees numbers reduced, which is the worst of both worlds, loss without benefit.

Anonymous

Still sounds to me like the fishermen are intentionally misinterpreting the rule.

Northwind

Why? The rules are very clear, they're being carried out as intended.

tri-sexual

its like you being blind folded and offered a bag of m and m's, the only ones you are allowed to eat are the red ones, any other colour that you pick up which is not red must be thrown away. try as you might you will at some time grab other colours despite your best efforts at picking only the red ones.
fishing with massive nets which can catch thousands of fish at once will catch anything over a certain size, so despite the fishermans best effort of catching a certain type of fish, other species will also be captured in the haul.
the sad fact is that fish not on the official list must be discarded, thousands of pounds of high quality fish is throw over board dead. fishermen dont want this but its impossible to avoid.

Anonymous

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

welshkev

yeehaamcgee wrote:

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

i think that's his point, they're not intentionally doing it as they're following the 'rules'. but i agree, throwing dead fish back is just ridiculous, it solves nothing as you say, but if they kept them they'd be fined. i don't know enough about it to know all the ins and outs but it's obvious the system isn't working properly

spongtastic

yeehaamcgee wrote:

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

I watched it and thought the same. Just because they can catch another 10 boxes of whatever, doesn't mean they have to. The fisherman were constantly complaining that the trips out never made any money anyway.

I don't think the 'you can fish X days per year' will work either, all that will happen is larger and larger nets will be used on larger and larger ships.

They haven't even mentioned the wonderful Icelandic government deciding to allow themselves another 225,000 tonnes of fish this year.

thekickingmule

yeehaamcgee wrote:

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by saying it's the fishermans fault. They put a massive net over the side, then pull it up and sort out the fish. The one's they are told they can keep, they box up. The ones they're told they can't keep, they throw over the side. Either way, the fish die in the process.

Anonymous

thekickingmule wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by saying it's the fishermans fault. They put a massive net over the side, then pull it up and sort out the fish. The one's they are told they can keep, they box up. The ones they're told they can't keep, they throw over the side. Either way, the fish die in the process.

They know almost for certain that they're going to pull in more of a certain type of fish, which they can't keep, and that the fish will die. Yet they still carry on fishing regardless.

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

What I mean is that the rules are supposed to prevent over fishing. But it's not working because they're still overfishing. Throwing dead fish back into the sea solves nothing.

Well yes. That's why the rules are ****ed :?

Anonymous

:roll:
My point is, is it just the rules being daft, or are the fishermen flouting them rather stupidly too? Just because there's a loophole doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it.

Northwind

It isn't a loophole, they're following the rules as designed both in the spirit and the letter. They're crap rules, sure, but they don't have an awful lot of choice.

The real problem is that nobody's come up with a brilliant alternative. There's better options but no perfect ones.But the CFP's a total mess anyway, has been for years so it's just another reason to overhaul it.

cee

Northwind wrote:

It isn't a loophole, they're following the rules as designed both in the spirit and the letter. They're crap rules, sure, but they don't have an awful lot of choice.

The real problem is that nobody's come up with a brilliant alternative. There's better options but no perfect ones.But the CFP's a total mess anyway, has been for years so it's just another reason to overhaul it.

and the timing of this campaign is no accident. CFP is due to be renewed in 2012......hopefully the fish fight campaign will give some of those politicians some ideas for a better compromise. And it has to be a compromise....clearly we have to not only conserve, but promote growth of our fish stocks.

miss notax

I saw this too (and yes, I signed up)

Another point they were making is that everyone nearly always eats the same fish; salmon, tuna and cod. None of which is doing too well at the moment. By being a bit more adventurous and eating and asking for other fish at Tescos or whatever, demand for the other fish types will grow and give the salmon, tuna and cod stocks a chance to recover.

Good point I thought! It's not really too challenging to vary what you eat a bit, is it?!!

Thewaylander

Coli and bream is good.

Anonymous

miss notax wrote:

I saw this too (and yes, I signed up)

Another point they were making is that everyone nearly always eats the same fish; salmon, tuna and cod. None of which is doing too well at the moment. By being a bit more adventurous and eating and asking for other fish at Tescos or whatever, demand for the other fish types will grow and give the salmon, tuna and cod stocks a chance to recover.

Good point I thought! It's not really too challenging to vary what you eat a bit, is it?!!

I've heard a lot of people say that when you get "fish and chips" at most chippies, it's not actually cod, anynmore. Unless you specifically ask for cod, or haddock and chips, then you get whatever the "other" fish is.
I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it seems to be a common belief.
The only thing I do know is that there's a local chippy that has HUMONGOUS fish. Quite possibly great white shark or something!

miss notax

yeehaamcgee wrote:

miss notax wrote:

I saw this too (and yes, I signed up)

Another point they were making is that everyone nearly always eats the same fish; salmon, tuna and cod. None of which is doing too well at the moment. By being a bit more adventurous and eating and asking for other fish at Tescos or whatever, demand for the other fish types will grow and give the salmon, tuna and cod stocks a chance to recover.

Good point I thought! It's not really too challenging to vary what you eat a bit, is it?!!

I've heard a lot of people say that when you get "fish and chips" at most chippies, it's not actually cod, anynmore. Unless you specifically ask for cod, or haddock and chips, then you get whatever the "other" fish is.
I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it seems to be a common belief.
The only thing I do know is that there's a local chippy that has HUMONGOUS fish. Quite possibly great white shark or something!

Apparently it's quite often Vietnamese River Cobbler :shock: (which is fine, but not when you're paying for something else!).

Tescos' were also in trouble for not labelling their products properly. Their 'sustainably sourced' tuna has been caught by a method which regularly catches turtles, dolphins etc, and their pacific cod (lots of them around) was in fact atlantic cod (not very many of them around).

I don't usually get caught up in stuff like this, but i'm only buying fish where I know a) what it is, and b) where and how it was caught now. And Tesco can sod off

bails87

Basa is nice too, and more pollock's being used a lot more now isn't it?