No sh**e

northeast1

Well-known member
'Profound' decline in fish stocks shown in UK records
Page last updated at 15:13 GMT, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 16:13 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Landings into UK ports in the 19th Century were four times higher than today Over-fishing means UK trawlers have to work 17 times as hard for the same fish catch as 120 years ago, a study shows.

Researchers used port records dating from the late 1800s, when mechanised boats were replacing sailing vessels.

In the journal Nature Communications, they say this implies "an extrordinary decline" in fish stocks and "profound" ecosystem changes.

Four times more fish were being landed in UK ports 100 years ago than today, and catches peaked in 1938.

"Over a century of intensive trawl fishing has severely depleted UK seas of bottom living fish like halibut, turbot, haddock and plaice," said Simon Brockington, head of conservation at the Marine Conservation Society and one of the study's authors.

"It is vital that governments recognise the changes that have taken place (and) set stock protection and recovery targets that are reflective of the historical productivity of the sea."

Victorian values

In the late 1880s, the government set up inspectorates in major fishing ports in an attempt to monitor what fish were being landed.

Continue reading the main story There's nothing basically wrong with the CFP and not much wrong with the scientific research they receive
Philip MacMullen

Seafish
"The records are prety reliable," said Callum Roberts from the UK's York University, another of the study authors.

"The Victorians were very assiduous about collecting information; and while some of the landings might have been missed from smaller ports, the larger ports were covered very efficiently," he told BBC News.

Around the same period, naturalist Walter Garstang was beginning to analyse "fishing power" - essentially, the capacity of a fleet to catch fish.

The biggest change over the period was from sail to engine power.

"With sail power, boats could only go at fixed times and only in certain places with a smooth sea bottom," Professor Roberts noted

"But when you got engines, that meant they could fish in any conditions of wind or tide and sea bed."

As waters near the coast became depleted, industrialisation also meant the UK fleet could travel further in search of new grounds - a phenomenon that took off after 1918.

But despite the growing power and range, the amount of fish caught for each unit of effort has gone drastically down, with 17 times more effort required now to catch the same amopunt of fish as compared with the late 1800s.

'Old news'

Philip MacMullen, head of environmental responsibility at the UK's industry-funded sustainability organisation Seafish, suggested that accenting the historical picture could obscure more recent improvements.

"It could be correct but I don't know, and I don't think the data support the findings," he said.

Fish such as plaice have been fished further and further afield "But it's old news. Fifteen years ago we started understanding how badly management was working, and 10 years ago we started doing something about it."

Seafish points out that in the last decade, stocks of some species such as cod have shown increases.

But Professor Roberts counters that the long historical timeline in his study shows the recent improvements to be small in scale.

"If you get a 50% increase from 2% of a species' former abundance, you get to 3% of its former abundance, so you shouldn't celebrate too hard," he said.

"That's why this perspective is important."

Whereas UK fishermen tend to blame the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for their economic problems, the authors of this study say it proves that depletion stems from mismanagament well before the CFP came into existence.

"There's nothing basically wrong with the CFP and not much wrong with the scientific research they receive," commented Dr MacMullen.

"But what happens to that advice when it goes up to the Council of Ministers - it's completely mis-managed."
 
In a few years time they will be saying the same about shrimps, prawns, crabs etc, I notice in Shields the number of boats now unloading tons of prawns probably because they cannot catch enough fish.
Unless these guys learn to farm the sea properly their greed will destroy the fishing around our coast.
Iceland turned out to be right about protecting its coastline, bet they don't have the same problems as us
 
read some intersting stuff t'other day regarding depleting stocks....

Scottish National Heritage....

seals eat between 6%-8% of their body weight in fish per day. Which doesn’t seem like all that much

and

2009 figures - 186,000 grey seals (90% of uk population) and 20,000 common seals in SCOTTISH WATERS

same site quotes 96000 seal in 1994, so they pretty much doubled in number in 15 years or so

8% of body weight a day.... average weight of a grown seal 500lbs

thats 40lb of fish a day.. each


186,000 seals - thats 7,440,000 lbs of fish - a day... or 3720 tons - a day

365 days a year...
 
read some intersting stuff t'other day regarding depleting stocks....

Scottish National Heritage....



and



same site quotes 96000 seal in 1994, so they pretty much doubled in number in 15 years or so

8% of body weight a day.... average weight of a grown seal 500lbs

thats 40lb of fish a day.. each


186,000 seals - thats 7,440,000 lbs of fish - a day... or 3720 tons - a day

365 days a year...

Very nice point to the arguement mate.

The problem mentioned seems to be falling on deaf ears. People would rather have cheap fish till its gone rather than paying more for less. If you think about it Anglers probably pay more for our fish than anyone else (if not on bait then on all the bloody tackle).
 
every creature in the sea live together in total harmonious order,from the largest predator to the smallest single plankton, until man decides to step in and destroy the lot because of his greed
 
In a few years time they will be saying the same about shrimps, prawns, crabs etc, I notice in Shields the number of boats now unloading tons of prawns probably because they cannot catch enough fish.
Unless these guys learn to farm the sea properly their greed will destroy the fishing around our coast.
Iceland turned out to be right about protecting its coastline, bet they don't have the same problems as us

And the reason for the increase in prawns is because of the topography of the sea bed has changed being much more muddy now instead of sand and there is no longer any cod to predate on them. As a consequence there is an increase in a disease that affects prawns as beforehand the cod would have predated on the weaker Nephrops. Just like an ecosystem should work.

Iceland has opted to join the EU now as well so they can kiss their fisheries goodbye also!

BTW SEAFISH, the industry group that represents commercial fishermen and producers, have claimed it is 'dodgy data'.....Well they would wouldn't they!
 
BOLLOCKS, do the fishermen these days climb up rigging in their bare feet, have no waterproof gear, very little to eat. I suppose having to use all the electric gismo's a boat has these days is hard on the eyes.
 
When the seals start washing up on the beaches dieing of starvation someone might start to take notice of fish stocks , specially if they are furry pups with big brown eyes , until then we might as well accept the fact that government won't do what is required to restore some sort of order in our seas. It's not just around the British Isles this is happening , it's worldwide wherever there are no conservation laws.
I can understand commercial fishermen not wanting to lose their livelihood , but I can't understand why they are in denial as to what is happening out there.
I'd ask a question of all of us who fish the sea ,

Would you agree to a five year total ban on all sea fishing to allow fish stocks to recover?

Ray
 
Hmmmm, what about the percentage of fish taken from the sea by a commercial trawler to a rod and line sea angler....?? There is a huge difference....

Of course there is , but would you give up your fishing for a considerable length of time to preserve the future fish stocks in the sea ?
Sounds like you wouldn't like the idea ?

Ray
 
they like salmon a lot. quite common for them to rip into fish farm cages for a bit scran.. releasing thousands of alien fish in the process and further screwing up the local fish populations
 
So tell me, how long do you think a recreational sea angler should hold back from fishing?

and...

How long should a commercial trawler stop fishing in comparison...?

To 'up' the stocks....

if you take fish from the sea you are partly responsible.

if you establish a system to allow predators of sea fish to flourish above their natural levels you are partly responsible

if you legislate such that any vessel from any nation state can take fish from british waters you are partly responsible

if you allow millions of tons of sand eels to be caught from the north sea to use as fish meal/fertilizer or power station fuel you are partly responsible

everyone has played their part to some degree or other

the EU & common fisheries policy being the single most guilty party

fisheries ministers are meeting in spain this week - spain have europes biggest fleet and get the biggest EU subsidies and take more fish from british waters than the british fleet do BTW, yet scotlands fisheries minister was refused permission to attend. the outcome looks likely that british boats will be forced to tie up for the next 150 days

spanish boats will not
 
if you establish a system to allow predators of sea fish to flourish above their natural levels you are partly responsible

Are you referring to cute furry seals there Mark or man kind?

For seals I don't so much have a problem with a cull, but think more research on their numbers and dietary requirements needs to be assessed. I would ask this because in theory if the population of seals is growing there must be food in the foodchain for them somewhere, whereas from an anglers or even a commercial fishermans point of view, catches are down. Even in the 1920's when numbers of grey seals only supposedly numbered 500, catches were already coming down according to the scientific data, so something doesn't add up.
Was there another Apex predator in our waters at the time which kept seal numbers down, if so where has it gone, or was it mankind that would have used the bones, blubber and skin for sustenance before we became 'civilised'.

if you legislate such that any vessel from any nation state can take fish from british waters you are partly responsible

if you allow millions of tons of sand eels to be caught from the north sea to use as fish meal/fertilizer or power station fuel you are partly responsible

everyone has played their part to some degree or other

the EU & common fisheries policy being the single most guilty party

fisheries ministers are meeting in spain this week - spain have europes biggest fleet and get the biggest EU subsidies and take more fish from british waters than the british fleet do BTW, yet scotlands fisheries minister was refused permission to attend. the outcome looks likely that british boats will be forced to tie up for the next 150 days

spanish boats will not

The Spanish also do a good job in fishing the waters off Africa as well, forcing many coastal communities to starve. Therefore the EU and other rich nations taxpayers have to send food aid to these often impoverished nations. So guess what, as a taxpayer you are paying twice. Once to the EU in the subsidies she provides to the commercial sector and again in the Aid budget that we contribute to every year
 
So tell me, how long do you think a recreational sea angler should hold back from fishing?

and...

How long should a commercial trawler stop fishing in comparison...?

To 'up' the stocks....

I've no idea mate , but if it were possible to stop ALL fishing in the north sea for a year or two or 5 years ......... would you agree to it to to let the fish stocks recover?

Ray
 
Back
Top