='"loading" + data:blog.mobileClass'>

Monday 25 February 2013

Budding Rose and others use social media to defend the work they have done on discards!


Skipper Peter Bruce on the Budding Rose is just one of a number of Scottish trawler skippers who have embraced social media to help promote their conservation work on discards and counter the attacks on the industry created by HFW's  FishFight campaign.

She fishes mainly for cod, whiting, coley, hake and whiting along with her pair-partner Lapwing from her home port of Peterhead.



  1.  have ever heard him say anything good about my industry ..he never mentions the good work we done to help stocks recover!
  2.  hope everyone in shetland is supporting the campaign
  3.  totally agree ..but maybe they're trying and not bring heard  is their to help

  4.  disappointed to see your unbalanced interview with HFW regarding fishstocks and mpa's.Why no fishermens view to balance the item?
  5.  he calling for 100 mpa s when they get 100 theyll want 200 never enough!!
  6. SWFPA is linking with award winning chipper. the Bay at Stonehaven, to tell the story in a short video of MSC North Sea Scottish Haddock.
  7.  Can also be known as the 'British Broadcasting Corruption'.....”true !
  8. Phone the bbc why no fishing industry representation against Hugh 0500909693
  9. Hugh's what's his name now on the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation!! 
  10.     is very friendly with a ex fishermen l know .. She is very supportive of his charity
  11.    l know for a fact that does care about fishing industry she has proved that before







Lead role in the Trawlermen series Jimmy Buchan aboard the Amity II is back on line again - expect to see more of these guys as they make a case for the many years of work and effort they have put into cutting discards



  1. Request from Hugh Fairnley Whitingstill to be my Facebook friend! Not going to happen!! until we educate him better
  2.   I buy a lot of seafood Jimmy, and I make sure its always British, we have the finest seafood in the world Sir!
  3.  getting on great, all we need is for consumers to consider eating UK caught fish and support the UK fishermen.
  4.  I only wish you could deliver! Breakfast followed Scallops and if Carlyn is in deep fried chocolate!!

Can new technology save fish?



A technological revolution is needed for Europe to end the controversial practice of discarding fish, according to the EU’s fisheries commissioner.

Maria Damanaki is calling for boats to be fitted with smart nets to filter out fish which would later be discarded as too small or above quota.



Get Adobe Flash player


And she wants more on-board cameras to ensure that crews cannot cheat on fishing rules.

She told BBC News that the hoped-for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy could not happen unless fishermen harnessed new technology.



Spy-in-the-wheelhouse CCTV cameras trialled in the UK are said to have cut cod discards from 38% to just 0.2%.

Fishermen on the trial are obliged to land all the cod they catch, whatever the size. They have been rewarded with increased quotas and permitted extra days at sea.

Ms Damanaki says cameras will be essential – especially for the biggest boats – if the EU adopts a policy of zero fish discards.

Smart nets


The other key technology is fishing net design, which Ms Damanaki says is the single most important component of fisheries reform.

At the North Sea Centre in the Danish port of Hirtshals, fishery technologists are testing new styles of nets which may answer her prayer.


Fishing crews travel here to learn about smart nets which separate catches by new designs.
One innovation is a slanting plastic grid at the centre of a trawl net. Large fish are diverted by the grid into the keep end of the net whilst young fish and shrimps pass through the slots. The grid is bendable so it can be wound up with fishing gear.
CCTV camerasCCTV has been installed on some fishing boats in the UK
The bendy grid costs around £2,000 – a sum which prompted British fishermen visiting Hirtshals to laugh out loud.

But Mrs Damanaki told me she hopes to subsidise the cost of new technology for small boats by 85%. The bendy grid may prove the difference between being allowed to fish and being kept out of the water.
The Rollerball net is another recent arrival. Traditional beam trawlers seeking flatfish drag heavy gear along the sea bed, churning up the sand and destroying much that lies in their path.
Rollerball runs over the seabed on what look like beach-balls. It is said to reduce damage and drag by between 11 and 16%, and there are hopes further improvements. Cutting drag also trims fuel bills and pollution.

Embracing change


Mike Montgomerie from the UK quango Seafish introduces crews to the latest technologies at Hirtshals. He said: “In the past few years I have noticed a real change among crews. They are hearing that the public won’t put up with wasteful fishing any more, and a lot of them are embracing change.”
Ms Damanaki went further: “The most important (thing is) how we are going to implement selective gear so we can reduce unwanted catches. This is the most important element of the whole policy.”
The crews I met appeared to be accepting change rather than actually embracing it.

In Scarborough, Yorkshire, boat owner Fred Normandale said he resented the trial cameras on his trawler Emulator, but the trial made financial sense: “It feels like we are being spied on - I wouldn’t want the cameras to be mandatory,” he said. “I have only done it because they paid for it and made it worth my while in quotas and extra days at sea.”
Graphic
His skipper, Sean Crowe, told me the spy cameras have changed the way he operates. “It makes you think more about where you are fishing. In the past if we brought up a lot of young fish we might have another haul to see what would happen. Now we move somewhere else and we check with other boats to see what they are bringing up.”

The on-board spy is a sophisticated system employing cameras; GPS; and infra-red and hydraulic sensors to monitor the winches. It produces a map of exactly where the boat has fished in the last two months, as well as evidence of what it has caught.

The kit costs £7,000, installation adds £2,000 and software puts on a further £300 a year.
Vested interests?


But the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which is running the trial, says this is still cheaper than human observers on boats – and much more effective, as the computer hard-drives hold far more information.

“A fisheries observer on a boat has one pair of eyes,” says Grant Course, head of the marine trials team. “With the cameras we can watch four areas of the boat at the same time, including the discards chute. We can see the fish being sorted. We really know what’s going on.”

The wheelhouse spy has been used for a decade in North America’s successful attempt to restore fisheries, but it may be resisted by some European governments.

The new net technologies are also effective, but the highly individual local conditions of fisheries may confound the sort of blanket technological rules that appeal to Brussels for ease of enforcement. A net that protects the environment in one fishery may not work well in another.

It will be hard for politicians to sort genuine complaints about inappropriate gear from the vested interest that has driven Europe’s fish stocks to their current depleted level.

Commission sources fear that France and Spain may accept the principle of a discards ban but raise sufficient technical objections over gear rules to render reform ineffective.

That, insists Ms Damanaki, must not be allowed to happen. But it is a sign of the changing times that the EU is no longer talking about whether fishing reform is necessary, but how it is achieved.

Full storu courtesy of the BBC

Saturday 23 February 2013

One chilly Saturday morning in Newlyn


Almost ready to let go of the ends...


not long to go for the big new netter...



not long to go for the big new beamer...


last minute tests on the way the gear is rigged...




checking the cod end and stocking can be raised high enough...


waiting for orders...



 the skipper's smiling this morning...

one of several lorries waiting to pick up fish...


bound away for another 10 day trip...



netters wait over the tide...



fresh fish for sale


from Trelawney Fish.

Friday 22 February 2013

Tom Webb comments on Fish Fight Series 3 - shame this guy wasn't an advisor to HFW!

MOLA MOLAScience, seas, statistics and society

Tom Webb comments on Fish Fight Series 3 - shame this guy wasn't an advisor to HFW!


What with Brian Cox spending an hour explaining the importance of body size in ecological systems, and then prime time marine conservation courtesy of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s ongoing Fishfight, I feel that my research interests have been rather well covered by TV of late. But whereas I have nothing but praise so far for Cox’s Wonders of Life, I find myself somewhat more ambivalent in my views of Fishfight.

On the one hand, it is fantastic to see the issue of marine conservation gain such prominence. Hugh F-W is an excellent and extremely savvy campaigner, and his energy and drive to reduce the wasteful practice of discards (subject of the first Fishfight series) has had a real, positive impact at the EU level. Of course, we need to make sure that the fish now landed instead of discarded at sea actually make it to market, rather than landfill – but that’s not to take away from what Fishfight achieved. And the focus of this second series, on marine protected areas, is also a really important issue – few would argue with the central tenet that we should take better care of the marine environment, and that protecting certain areas should be a part of this. Neither am I entirely averse to using shock tactics to elicit an emotional response in the audience – indeed, I attempt just this in my marine conservation lectures here in Sheffield, where I channel Jeremy Jackson in documenting the often calamitous history of human impacts on the ocean.

On the other hand, however – and notwithstanding the considered input of scientists whom I know, like and respect such as Alex Rodgers and Callum Roberts– we need to recognise that Fishfight is a campaign, and campaigning TV by its very nature is not especially fussed about issues of balance. This is the point made by SeaFish in their response to the series. SeaFish were derided on Twitter last night by George Monbiot as an industry quango whose interest is "minimum of conservation and maximum of exploitation", but actually they are a respected body who take science pretty seriously - although as an industry body of course they consider the social and economic as well as the ecological consequences of marine environmental policy. They have been making the point that MPAs in the UK ought to be established based only on sound scientific criteria – the reason rather few have so far been agreed is that often we lack these data.

Now, I used to be of a similar view to the Fishfight gang – that the priority ought to be just establishing  MPAs, on the assumption that even if they were suboptimally positioned, any protection of any area would be better than none. Then I started talking to people who study these things and was politely told that, actually, a poorly designed MPA can actually do more harm than good. So, my view now is that MPAs need to be carefully designed, set up with specific and explicit goals, and not simply placed willy-nilly.

More generally, and as always, the truth will usually lie somewhere between environmental campaigners and industry groups. Some scientists have been quite vocal regarding the oversimplification of complex issues that is inevitable in campaigning TV. Marine conservation biologist Mike Kaiser, for example, has been quite active on Twitter putting across a fisheries science view, and I agree with this blog post by Jess Woo, that framing this campaign in terms of a ‘fight’ is unfortunate – “the last thing marine conservation (and particularly fisheries management) needs is a ruckus”.

All of which has got me thinking: what does marine conservation need? Well, some kind of clear vision would be useful, regarding how we balance the needs of conservation with feeding 9 billion people. There have been studies looking at this from a fisheries perspective, but it struck me that there are real parallels here with the land sharing vs. land sparing debate in terrestrial conservation. Should we concentrate conservation effort into the preservation of wild areas, and exploit other areas for food production as intensively as we can? Or should we aim for a more balanced approach, seeking a way to allow human activities and nature to coexist? In farming terms, this is the difference between a mosaic of industrial farms interspersed with nature reserves, and a more extensive system of wildlife-friendly farms.

The obvious upshot of this terrestrial debate is that if you want a large network of fully protected nature reserves, you have to balance that with farming the fuck out of what’s left. Translating this to a marine context, a network of no-take MPAs requires fishing the fuck out of unprotected areas. There is no real incentive for more responsible fishing outside the MPAs: the focus should just be on productivity. So the depressing images of dredged and trawled habitats that Fishfight uses to tug the heartstrings would not disappear if MPAs were widely established. In this case, you’re pinning an awful lot on not only the (widely supported) in situ success of MPAs, but also in their (often positive, but more variable) spillover effects. Responsible fishing, by contrast, requires more extensive areas to be exploited, which may limit the extent of fully protected MPAs.

More generally, whilst we should be cautious extending the fisheries—agriculture analogy too far (fishing, remember, still largely targets wild, and often highly mobile organisms), I think it does provide some useful context. Ray Hilborn, a fisheries ecologist who also happens to be a farmer, has commented on this before: how farmers are praised for bringing the landscape under the plough in order to produce food, whereas fishermen are castigated for doing similar (often in farm more hazardous circumstances). Let’s just remember that (to use Oxfam’s terminology) the social foundation of access to an adequate, healthy food supply is of equal importance to the environmental ceiling of preserving biodiversity. If we get marine management right, we should be able to do both. I’m not convinced that starting a fight with some of the most important and knowledgeable marine stakeholders is the best way to achieve this.

Printed in full from SciLogs - Mola Mola, Science, seas, statistics and science.