0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes it would be ruinous to the economy, we have done it before with many industries...then when we stopped the public outcry, oh how loud they shouted.on the other hand, being unemployed and the gov. paying you to not fish are just not the same thing. If we set aside the unemployed that simply do not want to work (a vast number in my opinion), the rest are being paid a small sum of money while they (under contract)seek work, this is simply not the same as fishermen being paid not to fish.
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.
In farming, there is a process where farmers are paid not to farm a part of their land - what is known as set aside, but it does not mean they are paid to sit idle. Even with set aside, they still have the rest of the farm to work on, and maybe the set aside itself might need some management.As for fishing cod one year, and haddock the next - the problem is that fishermen do not always know what it is they are going to drag up in their nets. That is one of the problems with the present fishing policy - there are lots of rules about what a fisherman may or may not bring into port (you cannot know what he will catch, because as I said, he does not know himself until he pulls in the nets - he can make a guess, but it is not always right) - so if the fisherman finds something in the nets that he is not allowed to bring into port, then he has to throw it back out into the sea - but most of those fish are already dead - so he ends up throwing a lot of dead fish back out into the sea, because he is not allowed to bring them into port.
...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.
Quote from: JOLLY on 10/12/2007 10:36:22...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.The only problem with this is that by changing the availability of different types of food, you run the risk of changing the local ecosystem - this, in turn, can scupper any plans you have for restocking fish.
Quote from: BenV on 10/12/2007 13:55:51Quote from: JOLLY on 10/12/2007 10:36:22...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.The only problem with this is that by changing the availability of different types of food, you run the risk of changing the local ecosystem - this, in turn, can scupper any plans you have for restocking fish.This is the problem.Since the dead fish would tend to float, I would guess they would be more available to sea birds, and mammals such as seals or dolphins, rather than fish. The problem is that if you increase the number of predators (whether they be sea birds, sea mammals, or carnivorous fish) by giving them more free food, when you stop giving them that food (by no longer throwing dead fish back in the water), then where are those predators going to feed? They will start feeding on the very stocks you are trying to protect.The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.
Quote from: another_someone on 10/12/2007 14:33:08The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.That is what is going on now, with small numbers of fish. My only point was that other wild life will benefit from it, that not just preditors, scraps will sink and be eaten by all sort of things.
The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.
Quote from: JOLLY on 12/12/2007 13:43:01Quote from: another_someone on 10/12/2007 14:33:08The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.That is what is going on now, with small numbers of fish. My only point was that other wild life will benefit from it, that not just preditors, scraps will sink and be eaten by all sort of things.It does not matter whether they sink or not.The point is that you are throwing away dead animals - that is flesh - it is meat.If you leave lots of meat lying in the middle of a fields, it will help the rats, it will help the foxes, it will help the crows (these animals all eat meat), but it will not help the cows or the sheep, because these animals do not eat meat (except when fed if in processed form, which is what lead to the BSE crises).
The problem with throwing lots of dead fish back is that this upsets the oxygen level in the water as the fish either decompose or are eaten and the nutrients are excreted into the water, either way the end result is over fertilization of the water resulting in toxic algal blooms, which are known as the red tides in other parts of the world. It has not happened yet but rest assured it will and when it does the neurotoxins will cause the deaths of more fish and this will add further to the oxygen depletion and over enriched ocean water further exacerbating and compounding the problem.
Sewage and farm run off add further to over enriching the oceans. The end result is always massive losses in fish stocks, so the stupid policy in place at present is very much endangering future fish stocks and does absolutely nothing to helping the situation.
I am surprised that no one commented on returning fertilized eggs back into the ocean from the fishing boats that depend upon future fish stocks.Andrew K Fletcher
Your idea of releasing the eggs so that we have a higher rate of return to the ocean is a good one. Fish normally release their eggs and yes they often become cannibals and eat both the eggs and the emerging young, so releasing the fertilized eggs where the sonar does not show huge shoals of fish is always going to be a wise move, and lets face it the fishermen are struggling to find fish these days.
A good friend of mine runs a very expensive boat out from Brixham and several times has returned back to port after a week without enough fish to pay his crews wages. So I guess if the eggs all get eaten we don’t have a problem with dwindling fish stocks to begin with.
Another alternative is that the eggs are nurtured until they hatch and then release them to feed on the plankton in stages rather than putting them all out in one place. The collecting team might prove difficult given the huge distances these fishermen travel in order to locate catches. However having an official on board might prove to be more cost effective than sending out a boat and a team.
There is another option and that is a holding tank secured to take the eggs and milt from the fish on landing them back at port, this could be a percentage of the roe in exchange for letting the fisherman keep the whole catch rather than dumping them overboard.
When cod spawnEvery December and January, sexually mature Northeast Arctic cod migrate from the Barents Sea to their spawning grounds between Finnmark and western Norway. The most important of these grounds are in Lofoten and Vesterålen.By Beate Hoddevik SunnsetThe lifecycle of the cod is certainly interesting and there are contact numbers on this site to ask if we could have someone add their expertise and thoughts in this area of research to the possiblity of replenishing fish stocks. Might be worth dropping them a line?http://www.imr.no/english/news/2007/when_cod_spawn
http://www.newfoundland-books.com/site/1495114/page/912775
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/7/1353 Salmon in Japan
Taken from the above article...To use these programmes more effectively, it is necessary to evaluate both their river- and species-specific benefits and compare hatchery programmes with other management tools, such as fishery controls and habitat rehabilitation. Future hatchery programmes should incorporate active, adaptive learning approaches to minimize the risks associated with artificial propagation and to promote sustainable salmon stocks. and In Japan, considerable effort has been made to increase the number and survival of hatchery-reared fish (Nogawa and Yagisawa, 1994; Seki and Shimizu, 1996), most results being published in the grey literature. Japanese hatchery technology is well-developed, and both the quality and quantity of juveniles released are high because of the substantial efforts of hatchery managers. Japanese chum salmon are considered to be representative of the phenomenal success of hatchery programmes, which are seen as necessary to sustaining catches of Pacific salmon in Hokkaido. Unfortunately, there have been few efforts to assess whether these programmes have actually increased the population of the target species after accounting for the negative impact on wild fish and environmental changes. In particular, there have been few river-specific evaluations of their effectiveness. There are risks associated with hatchery programmes, such as competition between cultured and wild salmon, genetic impacts on wild salmon, domestication selection, and disease outbreaks (National Research Council, 1996; Altukhov et al., 2000). Overall they may be replacing wild salmon rather than augmenting total salmon production (Nickelson et al., 1986; Hilborn and Eggers, 2000; Sweeting et al., 2003). In addition, if genetically modified captive stock is released into rivers where wild fish occur, both wild and hatchery fish may decline (Muir and Howard, 1999; Devlin et al., 2004). For the sustainable use of salmon resources, it is necessary, therefore, to consider not only the potential benefits but also the risks, associated with hatchery programmes. We suggest adopting the concept of managing hatchery and wild fish together (Fisheries Agency of Japan, 2004). To use hatchery programmes more effectively, we need to evaluate their river- and species-specific benefits first (cf. Nickelson et al., 1986; Hyatt et al., 2005), and then compare hatchery programmes with other management tools. The latter should include spawning-bed enhancement (Merz et al., 2004), rehabilitation of channelized streams (Nagata et al., 2002), and improvements to access for migratory fish (Sagawa et al., 2004), but fisheries management should be implemented more actively. Such conservation management tools will guarantee the long-term sustainability of salmon stocks. Future hatchery programmes should clarify goals and incorporate active, adaptive learning approaches to minimize the risks associated with them and promote the sustainable use of salmon stocks. Scientists in Japan have initiated a dialogue about the most appropriate future direction for Pacific salmon hatchery programmes, with special reference to wild salmon.