EU's task of regulating fishing by kpo

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

EU's task of regulating fishing

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 1, 2011 19:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1140
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 4:09 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12598660

Quote:
Currently, EU boats in the North Sea have to throw away up to half of what they catch to stay within their quotas.

Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki proposes instead to regulate fleets through limits on fishing time and greater use of measures such as CCTV.

Quotas for fishermen, leads to massive discards: fishermen throwing away the fruits of their labour in a world where hunger is prevalent... Leads to tight regulation and monitoring of fleets, to reduce discards... Government regulation can be messy, and disruptive. But I personally can think of nothing worse, in this case, than 'leaving it to the free-market' :-/

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:47 AM

HARDWARE

Unfortunately, strict quotas help fisheries rebound from over fishing. The New England fisheries and the fishing grounds off Alaska are both success stories. Population control would be a better angle to attack the problem of world hunger than more fishing.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 6:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
... 'leaving it to the free-market'

That is like saying "leaving it to world peace."

Free market is an ideal that some people strive for, but it doesn't actually exist.

What does exist are varying degrees of regulated markets, some of which are less regulated than others.

It would be more accurate to say, "...nothing worse...than leaving it to less regulated markets."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 7:53 AM

DREAMTROVE

I support an international ban on commercial fishing. It's just a form of robbery.

That aside, it's also devastatingly environmentally destructive. I just read that around a third of all salmon species are now extinct.

If you want to produce fish, farm the fucking fish.

Simple as that.

If I wanted to sell fruit I couldn't just go on to everyone's land, take all of their fruit, and sell it. That would be theft. I don't see why commercial fishing isn't theft. if you're going to eat your catch, fine. If you're going to sell it, then you're not okay. You have to farm it. The art of farming is creating life. If you're not doing that, you're creating death. If we reward death, the planet will be dead in one generation, or less.

Furthermore, I have a simple enforcement mechanism: Just sink 'em out of the sea. Hey, pirates: Free money over here, just sink these guys.

really, there's no excuse for this sort of behavior, any more than there was for columbus to rip rings out of the noses of indians.

sheesh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 8:03 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I support an international ban on commercial fishing.

I agree, in spirit.

But how would you define commercial fishing?

Not to harp on Derrick Jensen or anything, but I liked what he said about Native American attitudes towards hunting and taking from the earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 10:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA

In the short term... um, USE LESS BOATS ?
Sensible, cost effective, even.

In the long term, yeah verily, farm the fuckin fish.
Only lets avoid that whole hormone-puming GMO crap if we can, yes ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:09 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

But how would you define commercial fishing?

I think I just did. You take a boat, you catch a fish, you sell a fish.

Is a guy with a shrimp stand a commercial fisher, probably not, he caught a fish, well, okay, a shellfish, and cooked it, but that wasn't what he was selling. If he has a chain, he probably is, but thats the fine line. Either way, he should probably be farming.

Heres another one: you catch a fish and you send a fish a long way away. If your lobster stand is on the dock in Maine, it's typically within a couple hundred feet of your lobster.

I agree with derrick Jensen here, this sort of fishing fits that predator model: those guys have a vested interest in not depleting the population.

However, if you roam around the world looking for fish, you can deplete one area after another. Thats what's happening, and its fish robbery. If you're in the Alaska sea fishing for pollock, you better be an Eskimo. Or someone else who lives there, with eskimos. If you're about to high tail it back to japan or china to sell off your catch, you have no vested interest in the health of the pollock population, because as soon as you kill it, you move on to something else.

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering who came up with this whacko left wing solution, it was a Newt Gingrich

but newt has a point. There's no need in this modern age for open commercial fishing. He also said there was no need for wild forest destruction, if you're in the business of selling timber, you plant the timber, you farm it. Agriculture is about farming, unless you are an actual hunter gatherer, in which case, you aren't selling anything, so the ban does not apply to you.

I think this solution could be applied from the top, but thats unlikely to happen, so it has to be applied in some other fashion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:19 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think I just did. You take a boat, you catch a fish, you sell a fish.

I think it is an issue of size.

I picture a Native American hunter, who trades some of his extra meat for other stuff he needs. I'm looking at the attitude behind the commercial transaction, rather than the act of commercialism itself.

I used to buy wild salmon from a fisherman in Alaska, who limits himself to line fishing (one at a time on a line). There is no real volume there, and he does it carefully so he can go back the next year. Do I think he oughta start farming? Ehhh. Attitude matters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:29 AM

DREAMTROVE

It just occurred to me that this policy will have the same problem the US policy boat policies have: it will not apply to Chinese boats in the north sea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:37 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think I just did. You take a boat, you catch a fish, you sell a fish.
I think it is an issue of size.

I picture a Native American hunter, who trades some of his extra meat for other stuff he needs. I'm looking at the attitude behind the commercial transaction, rather than the act of commercialism itself.

I used to buy wild salmon from a fisherman in Alaska, who limits himself to line fishing (one at a time on a line). There is no real volume there, and he does it carefully so he can go back the next year. Do I think he oughta start farming? Ehhh. Attitude matters.

yes, he has to. Here's why

Your line is fuzzy, and is easy to blur and cross. If the line is vague, it will be impossible to enforce and easy to circumvent. What good does it do if the international fisheries destroy the worlds oceans while hiring thousands of small fishermen to do the job? The effect is the same.

Its like having a law that says "thou shalt not kill good people, but bad people is okay" or " thou shalt not steal stuff thats really expensive."

I don't really care how the fish is eaten locally, if it is eaten locally, and fished locally, there is an interest there in keeping the fish population. This should be acceptable. Within reason. Sometimes cultures just destroy the earth, and then I think it's fair to say, no, you can't do it at all. You are grazing cattle on land that will be desert in three years if you continue. That's not sustainable.

Again this is a problem that you need chaos to solve. No one would get away with it if there weren't law backing them up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 7:11 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree that commercial fishing needs to be regulated, but I'm not agreeing with DT about banning it. I really love eating fish, fish of all kinds, fresh water, salt water, you name it I'll probably eat it, except orange ruffy fish, I get sick when I eat that, probably because it is farmed in Asian countries where there are basically no rules as to sanitary fish farming. Which brings me to why I don't think we should only be able to get fish from farming it, it often doesn't taste very good and has all those extra hormones like Frem mentioned. I do eat farmed fish sometimes, but I'd not like to only be able to have that.

I think the real problem is the foreign people who come into someone's waters and take all their fish and then move on, leaving the local area devoid of fish. I propose that countries who use fish should make a rule that foreigners are not allowed to fish in their waters. That way the coast of Ireland doesn't have these trollers from Japan or wherever taking all of their fish.

MMMMMM fish, one of my favorite things, food from the sea.

Are the fish they throw back still alive? Or are they dead but they couldn't over fish their quota. If the latter is true then we indeed have a problem and I think it needs to be remodied as soon as possible because that is very wasteful.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE