In the interests of fishing for the future

The past few days have seen fairly heated exchange of tweets between fishermen and Sunday Times environmental writer Charles Clover - of End of the Line fame when he appeared to take credit for saving the North Sea fish stocks...

which unsurprisingly brought on a strong reaction from some...

especially when he made it personal and attacked their spelling - and blocked them (and @ThroughtheGaps  - I made the mistake of tweeting very quickly without checking my SPG!) ...

It also didn't help when he ungraciously referred to us as 'you lot'.


It is like this Charles. Nobody denied you the right to write a book or take a stance on the subject of over-fishing and enjoy the kudos awarded it by some - and the film made on the back of it - fair comment based on facts is all we ask. Today, two thirds of fish consumed is caught by fishermen. The population of the world depends on these fishermen to provide a sizeable proportion of its diet.  In doing so, fishermen take part in the most dangerous of occupations - simply to put food in people's mouths. Many are from fishing families going back generations in communities that have been around for hundreds sometimes thousands of years. The work is not a job but a way of life - as a fisherman you eat, sleep and breathe fishing as so much of it is out of your control - it used to be just the weather, where to fish and keeping the gear in one piece - today it seems the world is united against the industry as environmental groups and charities funded by millions of dollars wage a war against them as if every fisherman is out to deprive the oceans of fish. Luckily, we are not likely to see the deaths of 120 fishermen again like we did between 1994 and 1998 when the fleet was considerably larger than it is today.

Which is why Charles, these guys became incensed at your words and your attitude. You do not face the kind of challenges to your being simply to earn a wage, feed your family and run the very business that provides your wages. They are passionate and react strongly because theirs is a hard, unforgiving world - and many in recent years have made huge sacrifices to ensure that fish stocks are healthy through technical measures and other means. Nobody will argue that there was over fishing in the past but please don't assume that things are the same today and talk to these guys as if it were.

More importantly fr the industry we need to heed the warnings over the involvement of Pew and their likes in funding European NGOs and take a look at where this is potentially leading industry - even Prince Charles it appears has been duped by EDF.

Fishing in European waters is a massively complex industry - if it wasn't most of the issues plaguing its management would have been sorted many years ago.

It will only be put in better shape so long as people continue to talk.



(ps - the End of the Line web site needs some repairs making to it )

Building on Success - an article from National Geographic by Lee Crockett from PEW

"In late fall of 2006, Congress came together to strengthen the primary law that governs our nation’s ocean fisheries—the Magnuson-Stevens Act, originally passed in 1976. A push from leaders on both sides of the aisle, combined with strong support from President George W. Bush, helped overcome political differences.

Now the House Committee on Natural Resources has advanced a bill to reauthorize and amend the act. Unlike eight years ago, however, this measure lacks significant bipartisan support—and a number of its provisions would undermine key reforms that have proved instrumental in rebuilding depleted U.S. ocean fish populations.

The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, along with an earlier one in 1996, required an end to overfishing, established clear timelines for rebuilding depleted populations, and required decisions based on science—creating much-needed accountability in the form of annual catch limits.

As a result, our fish stocks are in much better shape today. In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service, since 2000 the number of stocks subject to overfishing has dropped from 72 to 28, while 34 depleted fish populations have been rebuilt.

The current reauthorization bill, H.R. 4742, was introduced by Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) and approved by the committee with no Republicans voting against it and only one Democrat voting for it. Headed to the full House of Representatives for a vote as early as this month, it includes troubling provisions that would:

Add broad loopholes allowing fisheries managers to avoid setting reasonable timelines for rebuilding depleted fish populations; Exempt many species of fish from current science-based catch limits; and Undermine the authority of other proven, keystone federal environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act – laws that involve the public in decision-making and have helped restore, conserve, and manage natural resources for decades. Perhaps most significantly, the bill misses an opportunity to prepare the nation for growing challenges to the health of our oceans. For decades, single-species policy solutions have been used to fight overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries. This approach makes it difficult to incorporate important new research about how ocean food webs work or how fishing for one species may unintentionally affect others. Accounting for these connections would allow fisheries managers to better prepare and adapt to the changes that are occurring in our oceans.

Instead of weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Act and putting hard-earned progress at risk, Congress should require a transition to ecosystem-based fishery management. That means protecting important habitats, avoiding non-target catch, ensuring that enough forage fish remain in the water to feed larger animals and putting ecosystem planning on the agenda for fisheries managers.

Developing new policy tools to maintain the overall health of marine ecosystems would build on the conservation successes of the act in restoring depleted fish populations. And, according to a number of prominent marine scientists, ecosystem-based fisheries management would also provide federal fisheries managers with more tools to restore ocean ecosystems, making them more resilient to the impact of climate change on U.S. waters.

Policymakers in Washington today may stand divided on party lines over a whole host of issues, but management of our oceans doesn’t need to be one of them. As Congress did in 1996 and again in 2006, it should put partisan differences aside when crafting the next version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We owe it to our children and grandchildren not only to protect the health of some species of fish, but to ensure the broader health of our oceans. We can do that by taking a comprehensive approach to fisheries management."

Full story here:

This article invited the following comment:

Lee Crockett hasn't a clue what the “fasttracked rebuilding of different species of fish has actually cost the United states and especially Charter fishermen and coastal business’s. While stocks can be rebuilt at a slower pace and not hurt thousands of business and put tens of thousands of people out of work. He wants to shut down more areas of the oceans and really hurt our already failing economy by further restricting fishing seasons on already rebuilding or rebuilt fish stocks.

We must stand up for our children and grandchildren’s rights by slowing down these eco-terrorists such as Pew,EDF,Oceans conservancy and many others. We need to keep our public resources(fish) public not turned over to indivividuals using schemes like catch shares and IFQ’s(individual fishing quotas) that are being pushed by these very same groups. Please stand up AGAINST these supposed environmental groups who are wanting to privatize our public resources with their different schemes veiled in secrecy.

Saturday's medley of pics from the harbour

@Fishisthe dish...

the hole gets bigger...

and the wall gets higher...

one sardine net ready to go aboard...

it's that time of year when the artists in the fleet get busy...

even a spot of signwriting...

the fleet in silhouette...

making waves...

the main man on the Lady T Emiel all set for landing on MOnday's market in Newlyn...

interesting clouds today...

time for a break, not so sure about the reading matter though.

NGOs in question

A reminder of who the fishing industry (worldwide) is up against these days - it used to be fishermen and the weather - now the industry fights on all fronts.

Translated by Google from http://bit.ly/1rpGEDU (Alain le Sann)

"The role of NGOs is often debate whether at their field operations and their results, their funding or their questionable networks (dealings with multinationals), the question of legitimacy is regularly raised. Back on some analyzes and positions, including that point the finger at the close ties between some large NGOs and financial powers (particularly multinationals) ... Arundhati Roy asks in 2004 on the legitimacy of the intervention of foreign NGOs with their financial power in the South. "NGOs are accountable to their funders, not the people with whom they work." For its part, Naomi Klein also questioned the legitimacy of large environmentalists in their climate action NGOs. She says, "they have done more damage than climate deniers right." Policies implemented and their results were disastrous, as based on market principles .

In the United States, Mark Dowie, historian of the environmental movement, also calls into question the practices and objectives of environmentalists and large foundations that distract citizens legitimate democratic process NGOs to strengthen their role as intermediaries (what he calls " philanthocratie "welding portmanteau word" philanthropy "and" technocracy ") between citizens and governments, marginalizing small grassroots groups are not receiving funds from large foundations. This analysis is most recently confirmed by two academics in a book "Protest Inc., the corporatization of activism." They involve the development of large NGOs, because of their size, are increasingly being managed like businesses, and for some of them maintain close relationships with large multinationals , in a complex philanthropic capitalist. Two recent reports confirm the appetites and excesses of some big international networks in dealing with finance and large companies. They relate to Greenpeace International , who made ​​up in smoke million donors due to improper operation and market -Max Havelaar France , which triggered the wrath in the middle of fair trade through the establishment of a new label "fair light." It is pleasing to note that these developments raise indignant reactions from within these organizations.

On international solidarity associations (ASI), it is also their mode of intervention and some of their practices on the ground that raise many questions in the South. And in Haiti , the neo-colonial behavior of some humanitarian cause adverse effects and a sense of marginalization among many Haitians. In his blog, the Pakistani journalist Raza Rumi also point drifts humanitarian aid to Pakistan . The considerable weight of American NGOs raises legitimate questions about their role and impact. Raza Rumi considers that the superiority of the work of NGOs is a myth : they fail in their goal of reaching the poorest and most marginalized.

Basically, NGOs do not they have a weak state that they themselves contribute to worse? Question terrible ... but there are tracks real partnerships and interesting examples to support, based on the idea that development is a political process that allows the poorest to reinforce their rights, as pointed out the blog Irish NGOs Network for Global Justice . Some NGOs do not they tend to favor their own power instead of supporting the capacity of the poorest and most marginalized? Each case is different and there are still happily and NGOs really serve the poor. Aware questions about their actions, NGOs rely on the professionalism of their staff, and some structures do not want to operate on logic and large companies also refuse collaboration with private inadequate with their ethics and their goals actors. Finally, the need to establish real partnerships South / North is shared by more and more NGOs concern. An exit door to balanced reciprocal relations, free of paternalism?"

Apocalypse in world fisheries? The reports of their death are greatly exaggerated - another view from ICES

Another report - this time from ICES whose data was used for the 'scraping the barrel' report - a cautionary tale!


"The catch-based methods underlying the forecast that by 2048 all commercially exploited stocks will have collapsed have been severely criticized, and a recent and more-elaborate analysis by a group of scientists that included the lead author of the original article has led to a quite different interpretation. Nonetheless, the 2006 forecast of a forthcoming apocalypse in the oceans is still uncritically referred to by critics of current management and fisheries science. In the title, the quote by Mark Twain is paraphrased to underline the fact that this prediction is both technically and conceptually flawed: (i) any series of random numbers subjected to the algorithm underlying the prediction will show a pattern similar to that observed in catch statistics; (ii) this pattern should be accounted for in making predictions; and (iii) interpreting the period of maximum harvest in a time-series as generally reflecting a period during which a stock was fully exploited is incorrect, because history often has shown that these maximum yields were taken during a period of overexploitation and could not have been sustainable.



There is worldwide public concern, supported by scientific publications, that fisheries are depleting marine resources and that fisheries management is globally ineffective at halting this process. We concur that there is ample hard evidence that unsustainable fishing and management practices are widespread (Worm et al., 2009; Hutchings et al., 2010; FAO, 2011), but the solution will not be found in soundbytes based on unsound evidence and erroneous interpretation. The political response to evidence of technical mistakes in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the media attention these errors received, illustrates the counterproductive impact of even relatively small scientific errors, if the subject matter itself is important to policy.

The prediction by Worm et al. (2006) that by 2048 all commercially exploited stocks will have collapsed through continuing overexploitation became a focal point for public and media concern about the state of world fisheries. Several basic objections have been raised against the methods underlying that prediction (Hilborn, 2007; Hölker et al., 2007; Jaenike, 2007; Longhurst, 2007; Wilberg and Miller, 2007; Branch, 2008), and more recently, the interpretation of stock-status development has been revised substantially after collaborative analyses by some of the original authors and their critics (Worm et al., 2009). Nonetheless, rebuttals published with the criticisms of the 2006 prediction continued to argue that evaluation of trends in stock status based only on trends in catch statistics is scientifically sound (Worm et al., 2007; Froese and Kesner-Reyes, 2009). Moreover, the original findings are still being used to ring alarm bells for rapidly dwindling marine resources (Pauly, 2007, 2008, 2009; Pauly et al., 2008; Zeller et al., 2008), without paying due attention to the objections raised.

Worm et al. (2006) based their evaluation on the premise that a reported catch that is 10% of the historical maximum is a valid criterion for designating a stock as being in a collapsed state. A full description of the algorithm for a more elaborate catch-based stock classification (of which “collapsed status” was only one component) has been published by Froese and Kesner-Reyes (2002) and again by Zeller et al. (2008). This classification interprets the catch in a particular year (relative to the historical maximum in a time-series) as being indicative of stock status, taking into account whether that year happened to be before or after the year of the maximum catch. We contend that the method is both technically and conceptually flawed and that any predictions derived from it represent flawed prophecies.

Technical flaws

The algorithm used by Zeller et al. (2008) for defining five levels of stock status is simple. Representing catch (reported landings) in year YC by CY and maximum landings by Cmax taken in year YCmax, the following definitions apply:

1 undeveloped: YC < YCmax and CY < 0.1 Cmax;

2 developing: YC < YCmax and 0.1 Cmax < CY < 0.5 Cmax;

3 fully exploited: CY > 0.5 Cmax;

4 overexploited: YC > YCmax and 0.1 Cmax < CY < 0.5 Cmax;

5 collapsed: YC > YCmax and CY < 0.1 Cmax.

In a comment on the prediction by Worm et al. (2006), Wilberg and Miller (2007) applied the definition for collapsed stocks (status class 5) to series of simulated catch numbers fluctuating randomly around a stationary mean of a lognormal distribution with varying degrees of autocorrelation. They showed that the proportion of stochastic series classified as collapsed necessarily increased over time and depended on the coefficient of variation (CV) of the random errors. We extend their approach to evaluate the entire algorithm using series of random numbers (in the example running over 50 “years” for 100 “stocks”). As our approach is intended to be illustrative, we made what we consider the simplest plausible assumptions about the nature of the distribution, degree of autocorrelation, and CV, simulating a base case where the numbers varied randomly using a uniform distribution between 0 and 1. Many factors affect how reported catches are distributed, because trends in actual catches depend on the specific investment history within each fishery as well as the response of each stock. Moreover, reported catches may depend on management measures such as input or output controls, as well as on compliance. Therefore, we argue that the time-series of reported catches from fisheries, whether or not they have gone through the entire cycle from undeveloped to collapsed, cannot be characterized by a single arbitrarily chosen statistical distribution, level of autocorrelation, or CV.




Figure 1 (top panel) shows that under the conditions of a uniform distribution of random numbers, the algorithm inherently leads to linear temporal trends in the fraction contributed by the five status classes. At each point in the time-series, approximately half the series have a value >50% of the greatest value up to that point and would be classified as fully exploited. By definition, overexploited and depleted stocks cannot exist in the first year and undeveloped and developing stocks cannot exist in the last year. These built-in trends have important consequences, because they indicate that the statistics commonly used to determine the significance of trends are invalid: the statistical significance suggests that a finding is unlikely to be a result of the null hypothesis of random cause, yet the trends seen in the top panel of Figure 1 are just that!

Figure 1

Results of applying the algorithm for defining status classes: (top) to simulated random numbers in 50-“year” time-series for 100 “stocks”; and (bottom) to FAO catch statistics for various LME's, 1950–2004 (reproduced from Pauly, 2008, with permission from the Journal of Biological Research — Thessaloniki).

For comparison, the results based on FAO catch statistics for selected species from various large marine ecosystems (Pauly, 2008) are also given in Figure 1 (bottom panel; apparently, undeveloped and developing stocks have been combined). The similarity between the two plots is striking. This is not to suggest that FAO catch statistics represent random numbers, though indeed they may vary over time for many different reasons (e.g. exploitation, environmental, and political; Branch, 2008). Rather, it is to say that deviations should be evaluated against the built-in patterns caused by the algorithm applied and not against the null hypothesis of no-trend (Wilberg and Miller, 2007). Therefore, the analysis of the FAO statistics can only conclude that the fraction of collapsed stocks increases faster—and the fraction of underdeveloped and developing stocks is higher initially—than predicted by time-series of random numbers. However, finding an appropriate statistical test for the significance of this observation would be difficult because the underlying distributions are not known a priori.

Conceptual flaws

Using catch (the weight of fish taken out of the sea) as a proxy for stock biomass (the weight of fish in the sea) is a major conceptual flaw. Put simply, catch is the product of biomass and a variable harvest rate, so changes or trends in either can or do affect catch. No harvest means no catch regardless of the state of the biomass.

Moreover, no rationale for choosing the specific 10 and 50% criteria (relative to the maximum historical catch) to define the stock-status classes has been provided by Worm et al. (2006) or Zeller et al. (2008), nor in the original document where the algorithm was first presented (Froese and Kesner-Reyes, 2002). As noted by Wilberg and Miller (2007), Worm et al. (2006) “seem to suggest that maximum historic catch represents an achievable and sustainable target for fisheries management”. The validity of this assumption has been rightly questioned by Wilberg and Miller (2007), because for many stocks, the maximum historical catch has been proven to be unsustainable. More commonly, these maximum catches coincide with a period of rapid development of the fishery that results in a temporary bonanza while the biomass is being depleted. Therefore, they represent a period of overexploitation of a stock rather than one of full exploitation.

Flawed prophecies

If the catch-based evaluation of the current status of global fish stocks is flawed, what can we expect of extrapolations far beyond the time horizon of the time-series? As pointed out by Hölker et al. (2007), a causal correlation between stock collapses and time itself has not been demonstrated. The algorithm predicts for uniformly distributed random numbers that 50% of the “stocks” will be fully exploited and 50% will be overexploited or collapsed at the end of any time-series, irrespective of length. These figures obviously depend on the level of autocorrelation and CV in simulated data, but it is important to note that the rate of increase in the number of “stocks” classified as overexploited or depleted will depend on the length of the time-series (cf. Branch et al., in press). Therefore, the trend observed when the algorithm is applied to real data should not be extrapolated without first accounting for the change in steepness caused by random variation in the data over the entire period, relative to the historical period."

See the full report page here:

"We must rein in heavy fishing gear to allow the seas to recover" - different title - same story!

Another repeat of the report paper from Jason Hall-Spencer creator of last week's much publicised report in the Western Morning news and Daily Telegraph. This time the article was published in the academic site The Conversation today under a different title.

"We must rein in heavy fishing gear to allow the seas to recover"

"When the UK Environmental Audit Committee investigated the issue of protecting our marine environment last month, it concluded that there had been a woeful lack of decisive action from the government so far.

The committee, led by the MP for Stoke-on-Trent, Joan Walley, questioned the government’s commitment to introducing Marine Conservation Zones after less than a quarter of the 127 sites recommended by independent project groups were designated as conservation areas. And even in those that were established, there are serious concerns remaining over the adequacy of the enforcement provisions put in place. None of them, for example, ban the use of damaging fishing gear such as trawls and dredges, equipment that causes long-term damage to the sea bed and obliterates fish spawning areas.

And as an example of why that’s such an important omission, the paper we’ve published, a scientific study of commercial fishing catches in the English Channel over the past 90 years, reveals the true impact that industrial fishing has had upon marine life.

Fish landings from the Channel grew from 9,146 tonnes in 1920 to 50,924 tonnes in 1970, peaking at 177,793 tonnes in 1983 and stabilising around 130,000-150,000 tonnes over the last decade. In that time the amount of cod, haddock and hake dropped from 48% to just 4% of the catch. Sharks and rays fell from 34% of catch in 1920 to 6% in 2010.

There’s been a huge decline in what is called white fish, those species that live near the sea bed such as cod, ling, hake and haddock which are prized for their delicious flakes of white flesh. Fish such as halibut that can grow as big as a man, and the common skate have disappeared completely off the southern coast of England and northern France.

When we examine the footprint of mobile fishing gear, like beam trawlers and scallop dredgers, the reason is screamingly obvious – Britain’s sea bed is repeatedly gouged by tonnes of heavy fishing gear. It’s no wonder that the only fish left are tiddlers. Our supermarkets stock cod and haddock freighted in from Iceland and Norway, where fishing with trawls and dredges is banned in coastal waters because of the damage it does to the fishes' spawning areas. Most of the salmon, bass and bream we eat come from from fish farms, because we simply cannot catch enough of those species in UK waters to meet consumer demand.

English Channel landings 1920–2010, showing falling white fish catch (ICES data). Molfese, Beare, Hall-Spencer, CC BY Click to enlarge

The ecological balance of the seas around us has changed dramatically. Intense fishing of the English Channel by fleets from all over Europe has wiped out stocks of larger fish, allowing commercially undesirable species – the cockroaches, rats and mice of the sea – to thrive. Perversely, business is booming for the scallop-dredging fleet since scallops have tough shells and thrive in heavily trawled areas. But most of this catch is destined for the export market – it seems crazy to export what we catch and import what we eat.

A common misconception, one that is perpetuated by fisheries ministers throughout the European Union, is that there are too many fishermen catching too few fish. The problem is quite the opposite: there are too few fishermen catching too many fish. Large vessels manned by a skeleton crew trawl up vast quantities of sea life, burning fuel that is subsidised by the tax payer.

I want to see harbours bustling with small fishing vessels catching delicious food in a sustainable manner. The only way to achieve that is to prevent widespread damaging activities. We know from our own research in south-west England that marine life soon recovers once the use of mobile gear is stopped in inshore waters. If you dive in shallow waters off the Azores or Norway, where the seabed is left alone, the seabed is teeming with life, with small fish that grow up to become the fish that feed the offshore fishing industry and, ultimately, feed us.

As Walley concluded: “When a rare species or biodiverse stretch of sea bed is destroyed it may be lost forever. The government must therefore act on the best available evidence and base its decisions on new marine conservation zones on the precautionary principle, rather than demanding unobtainable evidence.”

The scientific evidence is in. Now is the time for the government to act. Setting aside areas where marine life can recover makes sense and is the right thing to do."

AUTHOR
Jason Hall-Spencer Professor of Marine Biology at Plymouth University DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Jason Hall-Spencer does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. 

The Conversation is funded by the following universities: Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, City, Durham, Glasgow Caledonian, Goldsmiths, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham, The Open University, Queen's University Belfast, Salford, Sheffield, Surrey, UCL and Warwick. It also receives funding from: Hefce, Hefcw, SAGE, SFC, RCUK, The Nuffield Foundation, The Ogden Trust, The Wellcome Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and The Alliance for Useful Evidence EVENTS

For fish fanatical fans #eatmorefish fish for it's #FishyFriday

 

There were a few more boats this morning than was thought...

which meant a superb box of tub gurnards was up for auction...

and a few scallops form some of the beamers...

were all flying off the markey floor

at great speed...

along with JDs...

wholesome haddock...

all keeping the merchants like FalFish happy...

there were even abundant supplies of those bottom of the barrel species like cod and haddock...

all carefully scrutinised by the young and the old...

as the Valhall headed to the iceworks...

before starting another trip...

the netters should all get away today...

you can't beat it...the Round Britain Experience...

time to contemplate a cuppa on deck...

as the bigger yachts head back to sea... 

good to see the Defiant in port again...

as the Ocean Pride heads out Through the Gaps...

for another trip with the nets...

wash and brush up time for the crabber.