the fish fight with HFW

[tom00_uk]

Half of all fish caught in the North Sea is thrown back overboard dead due to the current quota system imposed by the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

Support the Fish Fight Campaign to help bring an end to this senseless waste of food.

Fish Fight - Half of all fish caught in the North Sea is thrown back overboard dead

HFW has decided to take on the waste in the fishing industry and wants to all fish hauled landed. This currently happens in Norway and Iceland, but in our waters fish may be caught, frozen and then if a better sized specimen is landed it can then be chucked back. it would also mean a wider range of fish coming to the slab. Though there could be a reduction in certain sea birds as they have become some what dependent on savaging behind the fleet.

[zan]

I'm all for this one - something needs to be done about current discarding practice, and this might at least help publicise the issue.

[pammosley]

Hi, I agree with this as well. It is so very wasteful. Fish stocks are dwindling anyway & this I`m sure is a contributary factor.

[Cowgirl]

I agree that it's disgusting that so many fish are discarded & the fishermen don't like it either (I've watched Trawlermen !), but to discourage unscrupulous fishermen saying well it's not my fault they all jumped in the net is to sell anything over quota & proceeds given to some sort of charity or marine conservation works.

[Lancashire Lad]

I posted on this subject on a previous thread: -

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Couldn't agree more. The EU/Britain's policy on by-catch is insane.

The European Union admit that between 40 and 60% of all North Sea catch is classed as by-catch, and is being dumped overboard. (In 2008, this was estimated at something like 600,000 tonnes from boats operating in British waters).

The policy of simply throwing the (now dead) by-catch overboard, on grounds that it was not the "target species" or that it would "exceed quota" must be one of the biggest wastes of valuable resources known to man.

Countries such as Namibia (which, incidentally, claimed its own 200 mile limit, and banished the EU fleet from fishing within that zone) have the policy of landing everything caught, but of levying a charge on non-quota species.

The scheme is closely monitored by on-board inspectors.

Fish landed that are not included in, or are in excess of the quota, are still sold. The amount of the levy is such that the vessel/crew concerned don't make any profit on the excess/non-quota catch, but also, they don't suffer any financial loss as result of landing/processing the excess. (This ensures that there is no financial incentive to the crew to try to catch more than they should).

The scheme creates funds for the government, and, more importantly, ensures that the excess catch goes to market instead of being simply wasted.

If countries such as Namibia can operate such a straight forward and logical policy, then why can't Britain and the rest of the EU? ....

It seems quite ludicrous that countries such as Namibia can adequately solve this problem, but Britain and the rest of the EU apparently still cannot.

Regards,
Mike.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I posted on this subject on a previous thread: -



It seems quite ludicrous that countries such as Namibia can adequately solve this problem, but Britain and the rest of the EU apparently still cannot.

Regards,
Mike.

but this doesn't give an incentive to try to avoid catching small or non-target species though does it so it can still allow target and indeed non-target but easily caught species to continue to decline

I totally agree that the awful wasteage is disgusting but I'm not sure this is the solution on its own - perhaps it could work in combination with a decent network of no-fish zones where fish can breed and mature properly and seabed stays healthy.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

but this doesn't give an incentive to try to avoid catching small or non-target species though does it so it can still allow target and indeed non-target but easily caught species to continue to decline....

They do employ all the usual "safeguards" of minimum mesh sizes etc. etc. - so catching undersize fish is not a real problem. - I haven't thus far looked into whether they operate "close-season" or no-fish areas, but it would be an obvious thing to be doing, as it would be very easy to police under their current regime.

However, even if they don't, (and given the by-catch tonnage we are talking about in EU fished waters) their present system is much better than just throwing half of the catch back in dead!

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

In connection with my above reply, I've just done a bit of browsing to find out more.

This page: - FAO Fisheries & AquacultureNamibia, Profiles home Confirms Namibia's fishery policy.

Well worth reading, but refer to section 10.31 in particular: -

They do operate minimum mesh sizes.
They do operate closed seasons.
They do operate "Total Allowable Catch" to each licensee for any given species.
Every vessel has an onboard observer monitoring what is being caught.
All landings are completely monitored at the two commercial fishing ports.
They have implemented real-time "Satellite Vessel Monitoring" to deter illegal activities.
They operate air and sea patrols for further monitoring of any vessels in their waters.

etc. etc. etc.

All of this seems very logical to me, and I can't see why something very similar could not easily be implemented both in Britain and in the EU.

Regards,
Mike.

[Gill Catton]

Certainly does seem to be a logical way of doing things.

[gerard Le Saffre]

What does HFW stand for?