Bye bye bluefins

So despite everyone knowing exactly what will happen, human greed has decided that a short term profit is more important than the total extinction of one of the most valuable fish in our oceans. It makes me ashamed to be a human being. Disgusting. What chance does the world's future have faced with the idiots who are in control of our heritage.

If you don't know what I'm talking about start here.

geoffmaynard said:

idiots who are in control

Click to expand...

I think the point is, NOBODY is in control. The market rules. There's no such thing as society...

It's an absolute disgrace. Remember that it's driven by Mitsubishi and the Japanese. Tell any Japanese people you know that you think their nation is irresponsible by pushing for this.

And if you know any restaurants selling bluefin, boycott them and publicise what they are playing a part in.

Great pity. I was in a Tescos / Waitrose / Sainbury's / Iceland on Sunday morning and clocked the usual, sandwiches for the kids - easy-cop-out salads / whatever for you, offer of several cans of some form of cheap tuna (3 squid for a few small cans plastic-wrapped together), and did what I have done for at least the past decade (even though I like to eat tuna) - walked on by. Problem is, though, the multinationals, the corporations, the more backward-looking countries and the Brands simply won't. Whale, anyone?

Go here and weep.

Sad but inevitable, our own herring shoals were fished into oblivion followed by the cod and will never be allowed to recover. Not content with the food fish we even rape the likes of sand eel that a lot of species rely on for food. We are a sorry species intent on disaapearing up our own asses.

Mans greed knows no bounds. Once the Bluefin tuna have been wiped out, then they will move on to other species of tuna until they too have been fished to extinction.

Anybody who has a Facebook account can follow the latest and often disturbing decline of the bluefin and the rape of our seas by becoming a fan of 'End of the line' on Facebook. It makes interesting and worrying reading.

We're not doing too well with eels, either. Selling what few elvers run nowadays to others rather wiser...



Catch of the day

In the hunt for elvers, competition is fierce and the rewards sky high.


By Adam Edwards

Telegraph, 11:59AM GMT 23 Mar 2010


It was, to be frank, not much of a night's fishing. Standing in the cold blackness with a miner's torch strapped to my head scrutinising a large cardboard box-sized net every 15 minutes was about as far away from conventional angling as a filet-o-fish is from a Michelin star.

Furthermore, after checking the net thoroughly, my catch was a single see-through eel-shaped filament that would not have supported a devout anorexic on a size-zero diet.

"They're worth more than gold," said Dave "Elver Dave" Smith after scrutinising my solitary fish. And it is true that the "Whitebait of the West", as the elver is known locally, currently sells for £250 a kilogram. On the right night, in the right spot, with the right kit, it is possible to haul out a kilogram or two, sometimes even three. That is a handy offshore account for the impecunious.

But after my thin night on the banks of the River Severn I was hardly going to spend, spend, spend. The elver may be fishy lucre to the hardy but for the rest of us it is easier to keep the day job.

The elver is the baby freshwater eel that is born in the Sargasso Sea south of Bermuda and drifts over to Europe on the Gulf Stream in the spring.

The shoals that slip through the city of Gloucester on the night tide of the river are woven into the metropolis as surely as Doctor Foster and Beatrix Potter's tailor. The elver has fed and financed generations of the city, providing protein for the poor and pin money for the penniless. And today it still wriggles through the place like a golden thread.

Elver Dave, a print-finisher, casts his net from a small stretch of bank beneath Thomas Telford's historic bridge at Over most evenings during the three-month season. He is hoping that one night the fishy lottery finger will point at him.

It has taken years for him to establish his pitch and it has not been gained easily. At a bend farther up the river, where the elvers tend to congregate, there are regular battles between the rougher elements of the fishing fraternity trying to secure their beat. Many have now been forced to employ paid security.

And there was certainly a menace in the air the night I met Dave. Lights flickered along both banks like glow worms. Unsmiling young men in trainers and nylon bomber jackets briefly emerged and then vanished into the darkness while a barely visible motor boat raced down the middle of the river with shadowy figures on its prow.

"They're illegals," Dave said. "They'll have got a call on their mobile telling them that there are elvers down river." Night patrols are run regularly by the Environment Agency to catch and prosecute these rogue fishermen – but there were no officers the night I was fishing.

Elvers, known as glass eels, migrate upstream on the flood tide. During the ebb tide they move out of the current towards the banks to prevent being washed out to sea. And that is where they are caught during March, April and May by licensed fishermen (the illegal lot trawl the centre of the river). It is a trade that has gone on for centuries, mostly to provide cheap nourishment for the inhabitants of the Severn Valley.

Not so long ago the young eels were sold in beer mugs on the streets of Gloucester. Nowadays it would be easier and cheaper to buy a tin of Beluga caviar than a pint of elvers.

Today the elver is sold to the eel-eating Germans, Poles and Dutch, who all use it to restock their depleted rivers. It is also hawked to the Chinese and occasionally it will be flogged to a Gordon Ramsay or Marco Pierre White.

"At the peak of the season there are probably a thousand licensed fishermen on the tidal reaches of the Severn and I buy from all of them," says Richard Cook, the managing director of the Severn and Wye Smokery and one time director of UK Glass Eels, the last "quarantine" on the river where the fish are weighed and held prior to shipment.

There has been a huge decline in the catch of elvers in the past 30 years, mostly, it is believed, due to a slight shifting north of the Gulf Stream.

Pollution, man-made barriers to migration and in particular overfishing by continental trawlers are also blamed. The result is that the price has soared.

Dave Smith, with his bespoke elver fishing Land Rover and his £73 annual licence, is out to get some of that loot. However, there was little chance of landing a kilo of wriggling cash on the night I cast the cardboard box net.

"Every night's a gamble," Dave says. "I could be here for two weeks and not catch anything and then I have a lucky night. It's a casino."

I would venture to suggest that despite the nightly punt, the flickering lights and the criminal element, we could not in truth be farther from Las Vegas if we tried.

Dont forget the whale's,the Japanese have got their way and whaling is about to resume also,so there will be nothing left only humans,then it will be time to look out,the sale of human flesh will become normal.

it's frightening.

and to think.. some of us are fishing for abundant cultivated cyprinid fish, which we cherish so much that we dare not harm them, and throw them back after catching them.. yet we are using baits formulated from the ground-up remains of over-exploited, under-protected, endangered wild marine species.

Very perceptive, James. For the same reason that farmed fish aren't the answer until they work out how to feed them something other than ground-up fish.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

I eat very little fish these days that I haven't caught myself.

And I reflect that sea anglers have watched their catches dwindle to nothing without any support from the rest of angling. Why don't we get more angry about this kind of thing?

The seas we have been able to rely on for thousands of years are being bled dry and we say nothing. We just sit on our hands. We should be marching on Westminster.

Sigh.

Some of the 'facts' being peddled on this thread ought to make some posters hang their heads in shame. My 2p worth.

1. Bluefin are in serious trouble - no one, not even the Japanese argue this.
2. ICCAT is virtually ineffective at controlling stocks of Bluefin (an internal ICCAT report even stated this).
3. The CITES ban was voted down by a consortium led by the Japanese that included Canada and other bluefin catching nations. All this bashing of individual countries involved in the supply and consumption of Bluefin is counterproductive to the management of what is a highly migratory stock. Consensus is what is required. If the activists ever realised that they need to work with the fishing industry to sort this out they may make better inroads into these issues.
4. FWIW, I think that Bluefin are subject to such high levels of black landings and are so valuable that commerical extinction is almost inevitable. That does not mean I think that trying again for a CITES 1 listing is a bad idea.

5. The End of the Line - where do i start? OK, here goes...

In the film, Clover attacks a London restaurant for having Toothfish on its menu, a species he says is on the ICUN red list. It is, but there is also a fishery (the South Georgian one) that is accredited to MSC standards as sustainable. Due to the expense and time consuming nature of getting MSC logos on menus, less than 20 restaurants in the UK use the logo. Clover has no way of knowing where this fish come from, and so assumes the worst. No mention is made of the MSC fishery in the film.

Fish meal use in fish feed for commercial fish farming. Fish meal is used for both fish farming and (on a much larger scale) in the farming of terrestrial land animals. Its use in the latter only started after foot and mouth was traced to infected cattle feed - now you cannot use mammalian meal to feed almost any land animal in the UK - the big supermarket chains simply wont allow it. Now consider that the FCR (food convertion ratio or the amount of food needed to produce a kilo of saleable flesh) in fish range from 0.7:1 (trout) to 2:1 (tiger prawns) and that this FCR is hugely multiplied in terrestrial animals. The use of such feed in fish farming seems less offensive than it does in land animals when viewed in this context. The use of fishmeal in land animals was acknowledged in the film but no mention was made of the scale of it's use, nor the FCR's in land animals. The FCR's quoted in the film were also exaggerated by a factor of three for salmon.

Clover has now taken his trick of guessing where supplies of fish come from, applied it to restaurant useage in the UK and launched a new website and grading system based on this; one so bad, that within weeks of launch he was threatened with a lawsuit by the foremost libel lawyers in the UK, (representing Caprice Holdings a large restaurant group in London) having been accused of lying about Caprice's fish sourcing. Clover and the website quickly backed down.

Bob Roberts and those of you who have swallowed the entire plethora of claims in the polemic that is End of the Line, OPEN YOUR EYES. It is a one-sided piece of environmental activism, that doen't let facts get in the way of a good scare story. Are there parts of it that are true? Sure. Are there parts of it that are misleading? Sure. Are there parts of it that are outside the knowledge of those making the film? Sure. Is it the answer to the problems of overfishing? NO - it's a tactic designed to give environmentalists in this field more traction over public opinion.

goughie said:

Sigh.

Some of the 'facts' being peddled on this thread ought to make some posters hang their heads in shame. My 2p worth.

1. Bluefin are in serious trouble - no one, not even the Japanese argue this.
2. ICCAT is virtually ineffective at controlling stocks of Bluefin (an internal ICCAT report even stated this).
3. The CITES ban was voted down by a consortium led by the Japanese that included Canada and other bluefin catching nations. All this bashing of individual countries involved in the supply and consumption of Bluefin is counterproductive to the management of what is a highly migratory stock. Consensus is what is required. If the activists ever realised that they need to work with the fishing industry to sort this out they may make better inroads into these issues.
4. FWIW, I think that Bluefin are subject to such high levels of black landings and are so valuable that commerical extinction is almost inevitable. That does not mean I think that trying again for a CITES 1 listing is a bad idea.

5. The End of the Line - where do i start? OK, here goes...

In the film, Clover attacks a London restaurant for having Toothfish on its menu, a species he says is on the ICUN red list. It is, but there is also a fishery (the South Georgian one) that is accredited to MSC standards as sustainable. Due to the expense and time consuming nature of getting MSC logos on menus, less than 20 restaurants in the UK use the logo. Clover has no way of knowing where this fish come from, and so assumes the worst. No mention is made of the MSC fishery in the film.

Fish meal use in fish feed for commercial fish farming. Fish meal is used for both fish farming and (on a much larger scale) in the farming of terrestrial land animals. Its use in the latter only started after foot and mouth was traced to infected cattle feed - now you cannot use mammalian meal to feed almost any land animal in the UK - the big supermarket chains simply wont allow it. Now consider that the FCR (food convertion ratio or the amount of food needed to produce a kilo of saleable flesh) in fish range from 0.7:1 (trout) to 2:1 (tiger prawns) and that this FCR is hugely multiplied in terrestrial animals. The use of such feed in fish farming seems less offensive than it does in land animals when viewed in this context. The use of fishmeal in land animals was acknowledged in the film but no mention was made of the scale of it's use, nor the FCR's in land animals. The FCR's quoted in the film were also exaggerated by a factor of three for salmon.

Clover has now taken his trick of guessing where supplies of fish come from, applied it to restaurant useage in the UK and launched a new website and grading system based on this; one so bad, that within weeks of launch he was threatened with a lawsuit by the foremost libel lawyers in the UK, (representing Caprice Holdings a large restaurant group in London) having been accused of lying about Caprice's fish sourcing. Clover and the website quickly backed down.

Bob Roberts and those of you who have swallowed the entire plethora of claims in the polemic that is End of the Line, OPEN YOUR EYES. It is a one-sided piece of environmental activism, that doen't let facts get in the way of a good scare story. Are there parts of it that are true? Sure. Are there parts of it that are misleading? Sure. Are there parts of it that are outside the knowledge of those making the film? Sure. Is it the answer to the problems of overfishing? NO - it's a tactic designed to give environmentalists in this field more traction over public opinion.

Click to expand...

'All this bashing of individual countries involved in the supply and consumption of Bluefin is counterproductive to the management of what is a highly migratory stock'

What? We're all gagged from saying anything about the vast bluefin consumption by Japan because the industrial fleet has to travel the world to find the last bluefins? That's just ridiculous.

'In the film, Clover attacks a London restaurant for having Toothfish on its menu, a species he says is on the ICUN red list. It is, but there is also a fishery (the South Georgian one) that is accredited to MSC standards as sustainable.'

Er, so what? If one sustainable fishery remains for any species, it's mugged by the illegal fishermen who just re-label their catches and get away with riding over any protection. Maybe you didn't watch End of the Line carefully enough. Do you think all the bass in the shops are farmed in Turkey? Or are they undersized (by three inches) UK bass. Shall we ask them?

'Clover has now taken his trick of guessing where supplies of fish come from, applied it to restaurant useage in the UK and launched a new website and grading system based on this'

Not so much a trick as a method; if a restaurant won't say where it gets its fish, does it then get immunity from exposure by journalists? How convenient. And the rich and powerful use libel law to gag the press all the time, mainly because it's the only legal process in which the accused have to prove themselves innocent. If you can't afford the defence, you have to back down. There's no legal aid.

And your final paragraph is patronising to Bob, to me and to everyone who has posted here; how insulting. I see this is just your second post, and that you have not had the guts to post a proper profile. I also note from the stats that 'goughie has not made any friends yet ' Not surprised.

You clearly have an anti-environmentalist agenda. Well good for you. You wouldn't, by any chance, be trying to get 'more traction over public opinion', would you? Oh, no. That's against your New Order of morality isn't it...

MarkTheSpark said:

'All this bashing of individual countries involved in the supply and consumption of Bluefin is counterproductive to the management of what is a highly migratory stock'

What? We're all gagged from saying anything about the vast bluefin consumption by Japan because the industrial fleet has to travel the world to find the last bluefins? That's just ridiculous.

You're missing my point. I'm all for debate. But if the environmental lobby expect to be able to control and manage the entire world's fisheries, then they are mistaken. It needs a collaborative approach between all interested parties. And yes, the fisheries sector has got it badly wrong with Bluefin. But that doesn't change the fact that it can't be done by one sector alone - my view here is just as valid as yours (or maybe not?)

'In the film, Clover attacks a London restaurant for having Toothfish on its menu, a species he says is on the ICUN red list. It is, but there is also a fishery (the South Georgian one) that is accredited to MSC standards as sustainable.'

Er, so what? If one sustainable fishery remains for any species, it's mugged by the illegal fishermen who just re-label their catches and get away with riding over any protection. Maybe you didn't watch End of the Line carefully enough. Do you think all the bass in the shops are farmed in Turkey? Or are they undersized (by three inches) UK bass. Shall we ask them?

So you know, just by watching this film, that all of the MSC certified Patagonian Toothfish is IUU? Seriously, that's your assertion? There are UK fisheries protection vessels in this fishery and the MSC standards and details for each certifed fishery are open to scrutiny by anyone - that is more than can be said for the toothfish caught in international waters. Clover even acknowledges the benefits of MSC fish in the film and on his website. So is he wrong in endorsing this scheme?
And you do realise that farmed bass are cheaper than wild caught fish - even the small pair seine fish that no-one I know in the UK uses. Why would anyone use a more expensive fish if a cheaper and more readily available source is out there? And for the record, bass are farmed in Wales, France, Turkey, Greece, Malta, Spain, etc, etc. It is a commodity. Yes 99% of small bass sold in the UK are farmed, because it's economics 101.

'Clover has now taken his trick of guessing where supplies of fish come from, applied it to restaurant useage in the UK and launched a new website and grading system based on this'

Not so much a trick as a method; if a restaurant won't say where it gets its fish, does it then get immunity from exposure by journalists? How convenient. And the rich and powerful use libel law to gag the press all the time, mainly because it's the only legal process in which the accused have to prove themselves innocent. If you can't afford the defence, you have to back down. There's no legal aid.

"A method"? That's like saying ICCAT is a 'method' for conserving Bluefin stocks... The problem with your supposition is this. There is nothing wrong with Clover (or anyone for that matter) asking where fish come from - I actually agree with his premise. What I disagree with is that instead of saying 'this restaurant won't tell me/us where it gets it's fish from (which is a factual statement) he makes an assumption based on nothing other than his own agenda that the fish are from poorly managed or even IUU stocks (which is not fact, it's a guess). If you make stuff up (i.e. guess) then there is a chance you may be lying - and lying in print/online is libel. It has nothing to do with the money available to defend one's self, it is about the truth - and the facts in this case were that Clover, et al did not tell the truth when talking about Caprice's fish sources. Does Caprice Holdings not have the right not to be libelled?

And your final paragraph is patronising to Bob, to me and to everyone who has posted here; how insulting. I see this is just your second post, and that you have not had the guts to post a proper profile. I also note from the stats that 'goughie has not made any friends yet ' Not surprised.

You clearly have an anti-environmentalist agenda. Well good for you. You wouldn't, by any chance, be trying to get 'more traction over public opinion', would you? Oh, no. That's against your New Order of morality isn't it...

My last paragraph was designed to point out that the film is a polemic - it presents one side of the argument. Some of it well, some of it poorly and some of it in ignorance of the facts. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do know a lot about this subject and more than enough to see an argument filled with innacuracies when I see it.

I suggest you look at your own viewpoint and then read my post again - you are confident you know how fisheries work, I am telling you that based on my long experience working in them you do not know as much as you think. That is not a personal slight towards you, it is my point of view based on your comments in this thread- just like you and Clover have your opinions so I have mine. The difference is I fear, that I am pefectly happy to hear other points of view and add to the debate, whereas you appear to know all the facts from watching a one sided film about the subject. Nothing in life seemingly fits well at either extreme of an argument, and I'd suggest that fisheries management falls under this generalisation too (although this is not something that either side are normally ready to admit).

Click to expand...

See my comments in bold.

Guts and friendship? Everyone can draw their own conclusions - this is a debate, nothing more.

You may know a bit about fisheries, but don't tell me about libel, pal, because I have had to deal with bullying libel solicitors all my working life. You either cave in to these parasites or you brazen it out, and if that means writing supposition to flush out the truth, so be it.

Yes, Clover's film is a polemic, but I don't need it to tell me the oceans are becoming devoid of fish. I am an angler, and I know that, despite better fishing techniques and tackle, I catch a third of what I used to catch. Some species from my native south coast are now absent altogether. Mackerel sometimes don't show up at all. It's a disaster, and End of the Line couldn't make it look worse than it is.

The notion of striking some pact with Big Industry - which now controls the big boats - is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think they have any interest at all in moratoria? Turkeys who would vote for Christmas? We have been listening to their arguments for 30 years, and we now know that they are greedy, self-interested and dangerous. The fishing town I come from used to have 20-plus family-owned registered fishing boats. Now it has four. Local businesses swept away by industrial fishing.

The danger you are facing is that, by pointing out the one-sidedness of End of the Line with such zeal, you are inferring that the other side has some moral dominance. Bollox. Morality lies on the side of those who would save species from extinction, and allow poor fishing communities to survive, and if that means sinking Japanese tuna boats with torpedoes I, for one, could not care less.

Let me run past you one of your sentences: 'Bob Roberts and those of you who have swallowed the entire plethora of claims in the polemic that is End of the Line, OPEN YOUR EYES.' That's not debate, it's openly insulting to our intelligence. We are perfectly capable of seeing the truth. Just as you seem determined to bury it in meaningless rhetoric.

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

And one more thing, before I forget. I have been on bass boats when they didn't really want me there, but afterwards was told by one of the crew that they'd normally take everything, and sort out the little ones for the 'farmed' slab. Of course you don't get the same price for them, but you gain nothing by putting them back.

Black fish is a huge market in the UK, and we have some policing. In the Med, they have no policing at all, and you can go to any fish market in Sicily (as I have done) and see immature swordfish two feet long on the slab.

Anyway, time for you to come clean and declare your expertise; I am a journalist, who are you?

MarkTheSpark said:

You may know a bit about fisheries, but don't tell me about libel, pal, because I have had to deal with bullying libel solicitors all my working life. You either cave in to these parasites or you brazen it out, and if that means writing supposition to flush out the truth, so be it.

Wow. So, you tread as thin a line as possible in your search for "the truth" and take on libel cases only when you think you can win? Sounds like a scene from A Few Good Men - "you can't handle the truth", and all that. Your years as a journalist may have clouded your view somewhat. You don't see your own tactics as "bullying" either? Or do I not understand how journalism works? Not ALL libel cases can be spurious, surely? Nice sweeping generalisation of libel lawyers there, too.

Yes, Clover's film is a polemic, but I don't need it to tell me the oceans are becoming devoid of fish. I am an angler, and I know that, despite better fishing techniques and tackle, I catch a third of what I used to catch. Some species from my native south coast are now absent altogether. Mackerel sometimes don't show up at all. It's a disaster, and End of the Line couldn't make it look worse than it is.

You know, I'm an avid angler, too - that's why I'm on this site. And yes, some of my catches have declined, too (eels anyone?) but to suggest that EOTL portrays an accurate reflection of what is going on in the fisheries sector as a whole (leaving Bluefins aside for a moment) is bordering on the absurd. NO mention was made of any of the dozens and dozens of schemes (just in the UK alone) that are being put in place by the industry to try and tackle many of the issues facing the sector. Why is this? As a journalist you should know the answer - scare tactics make better stories than balanced reporting - it's not interesting for most people to read balance, it is easier to digest the extremes. Tell me I'm wrong here...

The notion of striking some pact with Big Industry - which now controls the big boats - is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think they have any interest at all in moratoria? Turkeys who would vote for Christmas? We have been listening to their arguments for 30 years, and we now know that they are greedy, self-interested and dangerous. The fishing town I come from used to have 20-plus family-owned registered fishing boats. Now it has four. Local businesses swept away by industrial fishing.

Two things. Firstly, why are MCS, Grrenpeace, et al in bed with the major UK multiples if it doesn't work? Secondly, where did I say that moratoria on Bluefin fishing was a bad idea? The fact reamins that even if a moratoria was in place, that in itself won't save the Bluefin - it needs co-operation of the Bluefin fishing nations, retailers, the public, etc to police. This is what most conservation lobbies do not understand - it needs support from all the stakeholders in order to get these things to stick. Take fox hunting - it still happens despite the ban because it's difficult to police hunters riding. How much harder do you think it would be to monitor any sort of fishing, especially in international waters? Environmentalists are great at pointing out where issues arise in fisheries (and it's good that they do), but they need to be better at becoming true partners in the development of fish stocks. At the moment they are notably lacking in the partnership element. (That is not to say that fisheries don't suffer from the same affliction, too). I must say that to generalise all fishermen as 'greedy, self interested and dangerous' represents the default view of most (not all) environmentalists I have discussed this issue with - to the detriment of effective dialogue.

It is also fairly obvious that profit and increased efficiencies are not going to go away either, so if it was up to me I'd develop strategies that take these into account. Progress (no matter how you frame it - good or bad) is one of the traits of man and I don't think a movement for the annullment of it will work. In fact, I would go as far to say that some environmentalists are actually preservationists wearing a different uniform. And like so much of this debate, an extreme view such as this just will not work.

The danger you are facing is that, by pointing out the one-sidedness of End of the Line with such zeal, you are inferring that the other side has some moral dominance. Bollox. Morality lies on the side of those who would save species from extinction, and allow poor fishing communities to survive, and if that means sinking Japanese tuna boats with torpedoes I, for one, could not care less.

Read my posts again. What I am saying is NOT that Clover, et al are wrong in their viewpoint, what I am saying is that a lot of the facts are wrong. And finding a consensus should be about debating the facts.
Your point about poor impoverished communities is an intersting one too - it is exactly the argument Lybia used for the striking down of the CITES ban on Bluefin in Doha.
You're trite comment about sinking boats is also fairly revealing. I would suggest you need to find out which countries catch most of the world's bluefin before you start a war on Japan. (Hint: Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada and Croatia are up there).

Let me run past you one of your sentences: 'Bob Roberts and those of you who have swallowed the entire plethora of claims in the polemic that is End of the Line, OPEN YOUR EYES.' That's not debate, it's openly insulting to our intelligence. We are perfectly capable of seeing the truth. Just as you seem determined to bury it in meaningless rhetoric.

To quote the Simpsons, "there's the truth, and the truth". You appear to see the commerical industry as a drain on society, I don't. You see my point of view as rhetoric, yet you fail to agree that others may view your opinions in a similar light? My views are seen as almost dangerously concilitary in the industry, but then it is used to intransigency being the virtual default setting. The massive weight of fiscal support that the eco-lobby have behind them means that rhetoric features highly in their approach, too (sea kittens anyone? No I'm not making it up..:wh).

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------
And one more thing, before I forget. I have been on bass boats when they didn't really want me there, but afterwards was told by one of the crew that they'd normally take everything, and sort out the little ones for the 'farmed' slab. Of course you don't get the same price for them, but you gain nothing by putting them back.

Black fish is a huge market in the UK, and we have some policing. In the Med, they have no policing at all, and you can go to any fish market in Sicily (as I have done) and see immature swordfish two feet long on the slab.

You do of course suppose that I have limited experience of these things. Now who is presenting the "facts" as he sees them? Sorry, I forgot, you are merely 'supposing'.

Anyway, time for you to come clean and declare your expertise; I am a journalist, who are you?

Click to expand...

Reply in bold again.

Who am I? Why does it matter? Does it make anything I have to say less important or valid than say, a confidential journalistic source?

Not meaning to be rude Goughie,but he might be looking over his shoulder for a 'troll'(foaly roll),not making judgements,but its happened before,very interesting information and thread,but beyond most laymen.