i heard on the radio this morning that under what has to be one of the most stupid eu laws ever that of all the fish caught 40 to 60% of it is thrown back into the water - dead!
i really couldn't make sense of the argument, it was on radio4 on the today show where you can check the archive if you wanna listen to the madness, but because of the depleting fish stocks, the eu imposed quotas. makes sense so far ... but apparently these big industrial fishing boats/machines can't help but catch the cod and haddock etc, so if they've gone over their quota of allowable fish caught - they throw it back. unfortunately by the time they throw it back its dead! whats the point of throwing back dead fish?! how does that help depleting fish stocks?!
millions starving and we're throwing perfectly good fresh dead fish back into the sea
It's shocking luke. Just like there are laws over here for uneaten food in restaurants. Instead of making it available to the homeless it has to be thrown away. Which to me is insane.
You could always argue that by throwing them back you are re-entering them into the food-chain and thus this will bread more fish. Not sure how valid this point is though as I am no marine biologist..
Unless the stocks can support it (which is a question for the experts) increasing the quota doesn't seem like the answer. It sounds like the problem is that either the fishing boats are not equipped to limit their haul (which seems strange as all it would require would be a small net) or they are unwilling to adjust their practices according to the laws. I suspect the latter.
They probably dump the excess to avoid paying lofty fines for exceeding the quota. Instead of levying fines against them, the gov't should simply confiscate the excess and use it to feed the poor.
Eventually, those unwilling to limit their hauls will stop doing so as they'll have to shell out extra fuel $ to bring in fish they don't profit from. And those unable to adjust their practices aren't forced to waste good food.
Nice plan there major - I think most small ships waste very little compared to these mass-factory ships and anything that makes them more conservative has to be good.
i think the industrialised method of fishing needs to be looked at, these vast trawler things that just capture everything in their path
this stuff about it going back into the food chain is true, but its making a positive out of a huge negative. birds aren't lacking food and probably whatever else that would eat up the dead fish aren't either - its a huge waste
i mean, just swap the animal round in the story to say a cow - you catch a thousand cows, then leave 400 to 600 of them behind dead. on a planet with so many hungry - how would we explain that practice to a family with no food? its crazy
luke wrote:on a planet with so many hungry - how would we explain that practice to a family with no food? its crazy
This got me thinking how an independent person might view this. I hope I am not being too cynical in thinking this could be "justified" on the grounds of starving the poor now so that the rich survivors can have food in future to eat.
This whole regime of quotas and allowing catching, but forcing dumping, does not seem to consider the interests of the starving who will die long before any "benefits" of this "conservation" policy bearing fruit.
Mandy wrote:It isn't as if we have sharks in the water to eat up the fish.
Dead fish decompose and are what feeds plankton, which is at the bottom of the food chain - so you don't necessarily need sharks for the fish to be reintroduced into the food chain. However I did listen to the podcast last night, and it seems more of a technology problem, with the trawlers just catching everything in the sea - and if a shrimp fisher catches white fish they need to chuck it back. Overfishing is a problem so just to say 'Well just keep the fish and sell it' would just open a can of worms really
