Following on quite neatly from my last posting is fishing. I am not talking about the supposedly 'most popular sport in the country' of grabbing a fishing rod and heading towards your nearest river or lake and in a sporting-like manner sitting motionless, staring at the ripples in the water for hours on end without so much as a nibble on your extravagantly decorated hook. I am yet to meet anyone who takes part in this 'most popular sport', maybe its one of those things that blokes don't tend to admit to each other or maybe its just an excuse blokes give to their wives as they head off tackle in hand to meet their girlfriends. I suppose that explains why there is such a successful fishing tackle shop close to me in South Kensington, far away from any self respecting swimming fish. The Thames is close by but has anyone ever seen anyone fishing there apart from the police boats fishing out bodies? No, my point is made then.
 |
| A fisherman's wife |
The type of fishing I was thinking about is sea fishing with nets where everything that doesn't get out of the way fast enough within a few miles of the back of the trawler gets dragged aboard and dies. The issue here is that half of this dead catch gets thrown back into the sea. Why? Its not because the fish aren't edible, they are. Its not because the fish are deformed or rotten, they aren't. It is because either the tasty fish are not what some customers would recognise as they aren't cod or and this is the really foolish bit, its because the EU says the fish caught are too young to be sold. Did you know that half of all fish caught in the North Sea gets thrown back in the water dead!
 |
| Catch of the day |
Now lets focus firstly on the EU rule that tells our good hard working fisherman to discard the younger fish. There were probably very well intentioned reasons why these rules were put together in the first place. It appears to be just the implementation of those rules that haven't really addressed the issue that the rule was created for.
A good reason for the rule, one assumes, is to try and stop fisherman from catching fish that are not old enough to breed and so give every fish a chance to have baby fish and so keep the fish levels fully stocked. Trying to get sustainable fishing is a good idea. Well I am not a marine biologist but throwing a dead immature fish back into the sea does not do anything for this noble cause. All it does is hide the evidence of the damage we are doing. This is a good example of a well intentioned change that hasn't been followed up to see if it is delivering its objective. How long is the EU going to wait to see if its policy is working? Is it going to wait until all the fish have all gone?
The golden rules that I always employ when putting changes in place in any organisation is to trial the change in a sample area, closely follow up to see if the change achieves its objective and apply any corrective measures. When it is proved to work and only then, roll it out to the wider area and then continuously follow up and monitor to see if the objectives are being met. It seems to me that the EU doesn't follow up their implementations but also they don't appear to remember the reason behind the change in the first place. We need to remind them.
To help us remind the EU of how foolish some of the fishing rules are there are some people who have heroically taken on the challenge. The person I am thinking of is Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall of River Cottage fame. His recent television programmes called the 'Fish Fight' highlight many of the issues involved with the fishing industry that we can help stop. Please have a good look at his website and get stuck in. http://www.fishfight.net
 | ||||||
| Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and a sustainably caught fish. Please ignore the way it appears he is drop kicking the fish. |
The good work by Hugh also highlights the other main reason why mature fish are being discarded needlessly. The market is limited because essentially people don't recognise the name or look of a fish. In the UK most people have heard of cod, tuna, haddock or prawns and so only choose them in the supermarkets. Its a marketing issue. People tend , given the choice, to go for a name or brand that they have heard of rather than take the risk of trying something new. Lets try and change that, let us persuade the supermarkets and fish & chip shops and anywhere else that sells fish to market the fish in a different way by highlighting similarities with the fish that we know and how better some of the alternatives are. We need to start the re-education now to ensure that we get sustainability of all the household name fish but also let us enjoy the delicious alternatives which will also help save our seas.
Fisherman need to land everything that they catch instead of hiding the evidence of ditching the discard in the sea. This will show the full scale of the foolishness being practiced. We need to create a market for this alternative fish which would ease the pressure on the levels of household name fish . Fishermen need to start using nets that allow the immature fish to escape without having to kill them first. I know such nets are being trialed successfully, how long do we have to wait until they are implemented on a wide-scale basis, 5 years, 10 years. I am not sure whether some of the stocks will last that long. Also trawling the sea bed for catch is like catching butterflies with a plough with a net attached on top going through a meadow. You may catch what you want amongst other things but you also destroy the environment where further catches can develop from, this method should really be outlawed. If as consumers we want to eat fish in the future we really need to ensure that proper rules get put in place to protect this valuable resource. If the EU cannot think for themselves let us educate them and anyone else who doesn't understand.
