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?