Fish Campaign

[STDracula]

Recently I have watched a T.V program about a fish campaign. I was emotionally shocked at what happened and know straight away that this should be stop NOW !

 

[flash=400,360]

 

This is what happening in the North Sea everyday, where fisherman are force to dump their fish because they are only allow to catch a specific species of fish under the european law. Any other species caught will have to be dump back into the ocean dead or alife.

 

Please support this campaign by visiting this website http://www.fishfight.net/ and spread this campaign to everyone you know.

 

Ty

Sir_Dricula

[Giordano]

What? Liberals said save the fish and now liberals are saying feed the poor?

 

GENIUS.

[Magbill]

Seems like an big waste of fish. If fishing continues at this rate will there even be enough fish left? :ohnoes:

[OldJoe]

Seems like an big waste of fish. If fishing continues at this rate will there even be enough fish left? :ohnoes:

Nope, the seas will be out-fished in about 40 years if everything continues as it is.

 

As an example, I haven't eaten cod for several years since it's falling in numbers, stores still sell it, but you can just make a choice by choosing another species. Tho our government recently said cod is "safe" again, but this is not true. The cod (and other species) would need a few years off completely from fishing by all the countries surrounding the sea, but try telling that to Denmark or Poland.

 

Oh and, that's just another example on how stupid and over-governing the EU is.

[obfuscator]

I can understand how overfishing is a problem, but stuff like this? Wow...what a waste.

[Assume Nothing]

I should bring this up in Economics tomorrow morning. I think it's a silly way to correct a market failure, though. I'll expand on this post tomorrow.

[STDracula]

I can understand how overfishing is a problem, but stuff like this? Wow...what a waste.

 

This is a massive waste, and it needs to be sorted now!

 

Please support this campaign on this website http://www.fishfight.net. A large amount of people already voted but to get to the goverment and to change the laws, we need to get more.

 

Spread the news and make sure you inform people about what is happening. This needs to be stop NOW!

[Ginger_Warrior]

The thing is, there's more to this issue than most non-Europeans would appreciate. There are hidden political motives behind the opposition to the Common Fisheries Policy which are aimed largely at the EU itself by people who just don't like the place. The solution on the FishFight website is a perfectly good one; we need to change our diet so changing the demand, but unfortunately, there's a load of people on the Euro-sceptic bandwagon who want to go down the "Let's take down the EU" route and use this issue as a hook to vent their anger. It veers the discussion away from the issue at hand and isn't useful. It's also not helped by our government's main party effectively marginalising itself in the EU debating chamber whilst it flirts with the far-right parties on the continent, because this basically means we have no debating power in the EU itself and therefore no influence over the future of the CFP.

 

It's also not helped by people like Jamie Oliver... the man doesn't seem to understand that personal morals have to be weighed against what other people can realistically be expected to do. People only have so much to spend, we spend it on those particular fish because that's what we can physically afford, and that's not likely to change whilst there's mass unemployment and further job losses forecast in the public sector. So unless he's offering us an allowance through Sainsbury's so we can 'celebrate lesser known delicacies of the deep,' his personal convictions may as well be paper promises.

 

I'd like to think I'm conscientious about the environment, and yes, overfishing will lead to an environmental disaster, but it's an inescapable evil in the current political and economic climate.

[RESULTS]

I just don't understand why they can't be kept at least for personal use. If they catch them ANYWAY, what's the point in dumping them?

I know that then people will take the advantage of being allowed to keep the excess.

 

so why not keep the current Quota system, but allow fish caught accidentally to be consumed or sold personally?

[Myweponsg00d]

The gulls seem to be enjoying it. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SEAGULLS?! Maybe those fish aren't going to feed humans but they're going to be eaten by other animals...I would like to see some analysis of populations of carnivorous species around this area. Maybe we are helping to save the sharks, or gulls, or other larger fish.

 

I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem. Everything needs food, not just humans. I'd like to see a more convincing case made between this practice and the detriment of the environment as a whole. Clearly we are killing a lot more of the fish that is being fished...but are there other species thriving in the area? It's not like we are taking the fish and shooting it into outerspace. Even if the fish are sitting there to decay...where do you think micro-organisms living in the ocean get their energy to survive? This practice could lead to increased algea and plankton population. The plankton could help to feed the whales and the algea could help with our carbon emission problem.

[RESULTS]

ARE YOU SAYING KILLING FISH IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?!

 

paradox there if i ever saw one xD

[Faux]

The gulls seem to be enjoying it. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SEAGULLS?! Maybe those fish aren't going to feed humans but they're going to be eaten by other animals...I would like to see some analysis of populations of carnivorous species around this area. Maybe we are helping to save the sharks, or gulls, or other larger fish.

 

I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem. Everything needs food, not just humans. I'd like to see a more convincing case made between this practice and the detriment of the environment as a whole. Clearly we are killing a lot more of the fish that is being fished...but are there other species thriving in the area? It's not like we are taking the fish and shooting it into outerspace. Even if the fish are sitting there to decay...where do you think micro-organisms living in the ocean get their energy to survive? This practice could lead to increased algea and plankton population. The plankton could help to feed the whales and the algea could help with our carbon emission problem.

 

yeah this. fishermen aren't necessarily good people. if they could take all the fish away in the ocean they would

[Myweponsg00d]

ARE YOU SAYING KILLING FISH IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?!

 

paradox there if i ever saw one xD

 

There is no magic list of things that are good and bad for the environment. We need to analyze each action individually, observe the results of the action in full, and determine whether or not the sum of all the results is enough to warrant environmental concern. We can't simply say "OMG U SHOT THAT DEER" and jump to the conclusion that the environment as a whole has suffered.

 

Also, there are way more things to consider about this problem. First of all, the government MUST put regulations on how much fish can be brought in by fisherman. If you don't see a need for this regulation, you have no insight into how the fishing business actually works. If fisherman could bring in unlimited boatfulls of fish, this would lead to EVEN MORE fishing, as fishermen get paid not on a time scale, not on a salary, but on how much they catch.

 

Second of all, what will be done with the excess fish? Is this fish going to be kept fresh? Do we need to build larger freezing facilities to store the extra fish? If we want to store more food here, that will require more power from refridgerators. If we are powering more refridgerators to handle this surplus of fish, we are creating a greater demand for energy, which has a whole slew of environmental concerns.

 

Furthermore, who is going to transport this extra fish? If we have more fish, we need more trucks to carry it to the general population. More trucks will cause more pollution and again, more demand for fossil fuels. Theres so many things that influence the decisions we make and the laws we pass. There are treasury and environmental legislative bodies for a reason. People have careers that are devoted to making these decisions, where they get to carefully analyze all of the factors that must be considered when establishing fishing policy.

 

Yet people want to boil it down to some kind of moral question. Sorry, but the world isn't quite that simple. Put some trust in the people whose job it is to make these decisions.

[RESULTS]

Firstly, the quota system in place which limits how much of each fish can be brought to shore, meeans that fishermen are spending a lot of time trying to catch certain amounts of rarer fish and catching a lot of other fish in the process.

surely it would be better not to have the limits removed, which would take a fool to believe was the right idea, but to simply allow the fish caught while searching for others to be brought back to shore?

 

say you have a quota of 1000 cod and 500 herring. if you catch 1300 cod trying to get the 500 herring, would you not rather bring back the dead cod as opposed to throwing it back?

 

about the freezer space. the freezers would be filled faster, allowing the fishermen to make multiple trips/spend less time making a trip, which would increase their productivity and profit.

 

the problem wouldnt be the extra fish. what I'm saying is that if theres enough of a species for it to always appear in gret number in the nets, then there's enough for it to be sustainable to catch.

 

as a fisherman, would you ratehr spend 3 days catching a haul of 1000 cod and 500 herring, or 2 days catching a haul of 1200 cod and 300 herring? the latter, because it means there's more profit for you.

 

As far as the supermarkets are concerned, unless they radically change the pricings of the 'common' overfished fish, and lower the prices of the more uncommon varieties, the public wo'nt give two cabbages.

[Myweponsg00d]

Firstly, the quota system in place which limits how much of each fish can be brought to shore, meeans that fishermen are spending a lot of time trying to catch certain amounts of rarer fish and catching a lot of other fish in the process.

surely it would be better not to have the limits removed, which would take a fool to believe was the right idea, but to simply allow the fish caught while searching for others to be brought back to shore?

 

say you have a quota of 1000 cod and 500 herring. if you catch 1300 cod trying to get the 500 herring, would you not rather bring back the dead cod as opposed to throwing it back?

 

about the freezer space. the freezers would be filled faster, allowing the fishermen to make multiple trips/spend less time making a trip, which would increase their productivity and profit.

 

the problem wouldnt be the extra fish. what I'm saying is that if theres enough of a species for it to always appear in gret number in the nets, then there's enough for it to be sustainable to catch.

 

as a fisherman, would you ratehr spend 3 days catching a haul of 1000 cod and 500 herring, or 2 days catching a haul of 1200 cod and 300 herring? the latter, because it means there's more profit for you.

 

As far as the supermarkets are concerned, unless they radically change the pricings of the 'common' overfished fish, and lower the prices of the more uncommon varieties, the public wo'nt give two cabbages.

 

You seem to misunderstand the requirements for keeping extra fish on land. If we are freezing the extra cod, that takes more energy. Food in a freezer wants to absorb heat from the warm conditions outside of the freezer. To keep the fish frozen, we need to pump this heat out of the freezer. More fish to freeze would mean that you are spending more energy to keep them frozen. More fish arriving at the docks, again, means more energy spent to move them from the docks to the storage facilities, and then to the grocery stores.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The supermarkets aren't the ones shoving plates of cod into breadcrumb-coated fingers either, except for their own brands of course. You wanna tell Birdseye they can't use cheap fish in their products? Be my guest, you know how legally troubling such a proposal would be?

[OldJoe]

The gulls seem to be enjoying it. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SEAGULLS?! Maybe those fish aren't going to feed humans but they're going to be eaten by other animals...I would like to see some analysis of populations of carnivorous species around this area. Maybe we are helping to save the sharks, or gulls, or other larger fish.

 

I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem. Everything needs food, not just humans. I'd like to see a more convincing case made between this practice and the detriment of the environment as a whole. Clearly we are killing a lot more of the fish that is being fished...but are there other species thriving in the area? It's not like we are taking the fish and shooting it into outerspace. Even if the fish are sitting there to decay...where do you think micro-organisms living in the ocean get their energy to survive? This practice could lead to increased algea and plankton population. The plankton could help to feed the whales and the algea could help with our carbon emission problem.

Algae decreases the number of fish.

A lot of what's caught in the seas are baby fish, fish that hasn't matured and isn't able to populate yet.

[garm22]

What exactly is this fish fight campaign proposing? That fisherman should be allowed to go over quota and not throw the fish back? :unsure:

 

That would be far more detrimental to the ecosystem than how things currently work.

[stevepole]

What exactly is this fish fight campaign proposing? That fisherman should be allowed to go over quota and not throw the fish back? :unsure:

 

That would be far more detrimental to the ecosystem than how things currently work.

 

Fish Fight is basically purposing that change needs to happen and to end destructive fishing practices. They don't appear to have their own solution but have linked to non-governmental organizations that have suggested solutions to the problem.

 

http://www.fishfight.net/solutions/

[Omar]

The gulls seem to be enjoying it. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SEAGULLS?! Maybe those fish aren't going to feed humans but they're going to be eaten by other animals...I would like to see some analysis of populations of carnivorous species around this area. Maybe we are helping to save the sharks, or gulls, or other larger fish.

 

I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem. Everything needs food, not just humans. I'd like to see a more convincing case made between this practice and the detriment of the environment as a whole. Clearly we are killing a lot more of the fish that is being fished...but are there other species thriving in the area? It's not like we are taking the fish and shooting it into outerspace. Even if the fish are sitting there to decay...where do you think micro-organisms living in the ocean get their energy to survive? This practice could lead to increased algea and plankton population. The plankton could help to feed the whales and the algea could help with our carbon emission problem.

I think gulls don't need us to dump fish for them to survive. They were there before we started doing it.

[MissFrodo]

:( support