Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Fishing
zigs

Throwing fish back dead

About as eco friendly as fillet and release,

Have a look at the video & see if you want to sign the petition.

http://www.fishfight.net/index#signup-form
kirstyfern

I've always thought that it was a complete waste throwing fish back - because of quotas!
I've just signed up and posted on my facebook page x
zigs

kirstyfern wrote:
I've always thought that it was a complete waste throwing fish back - because of quotas!
I've just signed up and posted on my facebook page x


I too have put it on facebok & other angling sites
Jamanda

Hmm. Yes the fish waste is appalling, but this

Quote:
By submitting this registration, River Cottage can contact me about relevant products and services, unless I have unticked this box to object.


with a very pale tick in the box is a bit sneaky.

I think I'll find a different way to voice my disapproval.
crofter

Good to see the villains are no longer "greedy fishermen"
Ty Gwyn

Jamanda wrote:
Hmm. Yes the fish waste is appalling, but this

Quote:
By submitting this registration, River Cottage can contact me about relevant products and services, unless I have unticked this box to object.


with a very pale tick in the box is a bit sneaky.

I think I'll find a different way to voice my disapproval.


Its RC`s way of Marketting through an appeal,
I agree its a sneaky way,i noticed that ,in-fact the site since change is one big spam.
Bodger

Its not an ideal situation, far from it. BUT, if what this petition is advocating, is that every dead fish landed should be put into the food chain, then surely this is going to be open to massive abuse.

For starters, you might as well do away with all quotas. I say this, because thats what commercial fishermen would be encouraged to do. They'd be able to fish away full time, with the perfect excuse that virtually everything that they catch is almost certain to die if its released back into the sea. If what is being suggested is ever implemented, it would surely encourage fishermen to go over quota, content in the knowledge that any excess would be worth something to them financially. At the moment, not only is it a loss to the environment but its also a financial loss to them too.
The present situation is far from being ideal, we all hate waste, but IMO the alternative would be far worse.
Its about as well thought out as a chocolate teapot.

I don't think that there's a simple answer to the situation. Our seas are already being hoovered by commercial fisherman, if this change in legislation ever came to pass, then it would allow the sea to get even more of a cleaning.
milkmaid

big fishing area here ,and i work with exfisherman ,
watching the small fishing boats here and then seeing big trawlers from else where coming in sticks in their troat a bit ,
they've been paying for boats to be taken out to sea and blown up ,we have lost a lot here to that
one of the problems here is small fish ,the fish used to be a size you can land a lot of them are to small now they use nets with bigger holes now

they are only allowed out here 2 days a week
and in scotland they're setting up a marine park
Treacodactyl

Re: Throwing fish back dead

ziggy searchfield wrote:
About as eco friendly as fillet and release,

Have a look at the video & see if you want to sign the petition.

http://www.fishfight.net/index#signup-form


Is there any details on how things can be changed? I assume the idea will not be to allow everything in the sea to be caught but there's no details on that site and the letter has nothing in it either.
JB

Jamanda wrote:
Hmm. Yes the fish waste is appalling, but this

Quote:
By submitting this registration, River Cottage can contact me about relevant products and services, unless I have unticked this box to object.


with a very pale tick in the box is a bit sneaky.

I think I'll find a different way to voice my disapproval.


Write direct to the appropriate ministers, MPs etc. Petitions are a very ineffective way to campaign for anything, a letter (and I mean a letter, not an email) are far more effective.
paul1963

Throwing away food? I reckon the hungry peoples elsewhere in the world might have a view on that.
Hairyloon

Re: Throwing fish back dead

Treacodactyl wrote:
Is there any details on how things can be changed?

A good start would be those escape panels in the nets to let the under-size fish get away... I don't believe they are compulsory yet, and there is no reason for them to not be.
Increase the minimum size allowed.
And ban purse seine nets over a given size.
paul1963

Hairyloon, you are absolutely spot on, and it wouldn't take rhat long for fish stocks to start to recover.

During the 2nd World War fish stocks in the North Atlantic returned to the levels of fifty years earlier thanks the the Nazi Kriegsmarine's fishing policy - they used to sink our fishing boats......
Treacodactyl

Re: Throwing fish back dead

Hairyloon wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
Is there any details on how things can be changed?

A good start would be those escape panels in the nets to let the under-size fish get away... I don't believe they are compulsory yet, and there is no reason for them to not be.
Increase the minimum size allowed.
And ban purse seine nets over a given size.


I know there's lots that could be done, but the letter in the link doesn't list any. I would be very wary of signing something that could lead to a worse situation, something many of the petitions seem to forget.
crofter

Bodger wrote:
Our seas are already being hoovered by commercial fisherman, if this change in legislation ever came to pass, then it would allow the sea to get even more of a cleaning.


Well, there are fishermen out there this afternoon, and to be honest I don't envy them. Contrary to popular belief, they are not hoovering up every creature in sight, many will be struggling to pay the bills because they do not have enough days at sea. I agree that there is no easy solution, but a restriction on effort combined with landing everything caught would be better than the current madness.

I think Milkmaid has hit the nail on the head. Quotas have nothing to do with conservation, they are a political tool which allow "equal access to a common resource" Despite what most people believe, cod are not endangered, in a year or two even the fisheries scientists will agree with that.
sean

crofter wrote:
Despite what most people believe, cod are not endangered, in a year or two even the fisheries scientists will agree with that.


What do you base that on? It may well be true for all I know, but I'd quite like to see some sort of evidence.
crofter

sean wrote:
crofter wrote:
Despite what most people believe, cod are not endangered, in a year or two even the fisheries scientists will agree with that.


What do you base that on? It may well be true for all I know, but I'd quite like to see some sort of evidence.


Ask a fisherman.
sean

Brilliant. Which bit of the word 'evidence' don't you understand?

Edit: Sorry if that seems rude but it is substantively ignoring the question completely. And stuff that 'everybody knows' is usually rubbish I'm afraid.
milkmaid

i'm not sure about cod ,most people seem to think they have headed up north a bit
i do work with 3 exfishermen and my daughter works at a place that buys straight off the boats so talks to people who make their living off fishing a lot of them are leaving the sea ,not though lack of fish but though lack of work ,when you are only allowed 2 days at sea ,
and as i said huge boats pull into the harbour and it does grate on them ,lots of small 3 to 4 man boats here well ,there were Very Happy
although the fish caught on a line here now are generally smaller as i said they are setting up a marine park where no fishing is allowed
so that they have a place to breed
not evidence but i will ask about cod if i get a chance next week ,
crofter

sean wrote:
Brilliant. Which bit of the word 'evidence' don't you understand?

Edit: Sorry if that seems rude but it is substantively ignoring the question completely. And stuff that 'everybody knows' is usually rubbish I'm afraid.


Not rude at all, sorry for the flippant answer. "Everybody" doesn't know, but I can assure you that the people who do know are the men who are out there in all weathers lifting shot after shot and throwing countless tonnes of cod back into the sea dead because they are not allowed to land it.

As I said, the "evidence" will not be available until next year, when the fisheries scientists will confirm what the fishermen already know.
crofter

sean wrote:
Brilliant. Which bit of the word 'evidence' don't you understand?


If you do not accept credible eye-witness reports, here is the same story summarised in writing

Quote:
Cod stocks in the North Sea are recovering.


Quote:
There is no argument over the setting of a stringent target for fishing mortality. The
real issue is discarding.


Quote:
The lack of quota appears to be a particular problem with cod – where the quota has not kept pace with the expansion in the stock.
http://www.nsrac.org/category/meetings/

(^From 2010 reports)

Quote:
Greenpeace opposed a slight rise in the North Sea cod quotas last year, despite evidence from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (Ices) that stocks are beginning to recover.


Quote:
“Immediately I am going to put monkfish, cod and haddock on the menu,” he says. “We are told, especially in England, that cod is very much overfished and we shouldn’t take it at all. But today I saw a multitude of large cod. Of course, every fisherman is keen to tell me that’s a nonsense, the fisheries are healthy, that we are underfishing rather than overfishing. But this morning I could see that: tonnes of good quality fish. That is fantastic for me as a chef to see, because we are being told so much negative news.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5113666.ece

This article is from 2 years ago....
carlseawolf

As a ex -fisherman what you see on the video has been happening for many years and it has been the fishermen who have been complaining about the waste of fish to the goverment .
To understand the quota system you have got to go back to 1971 when this mess was made up by the EU. When the goverment of the perposed new EU asked their fishermen about their catch rates from previous years the british fisherman feared it was another way of getting more tax out of them so gave smaller figuers than they had caught, so when the time to share out the EU fish quota britian got about 16% and france around 60%.
This 16% is then split between sector and non sector fishermen with the sector getting the lions share. A sector fisherman would have had a boat before the EU was formed so had a track record of there catch and was awarded quota to what he had caught the previous years. The non sector was made up of people with no track record so where given a small quota to fish on , this was on a monthy basis and was over a vast area in little sea areas so you was on the move to forfill your quota which was lost the end off each month.


.
carlseawolf

The goverment,fisherman, scientist

The quota system is a complete nightmare as it doesn't show the state of fish stock as it goes on the basis of what fisherman put in their logbooks.
To understand the fishermans point of view this is how fish weight is calculated when coming aboard a fishing boat at sea . The fish get caught on the boat that is called LIVE WEIGHT then it is prossesed that is BOX WEIGHT ,and then landed on the quay as QUOTA WEIGHT.
Between these three weights the goverment allows a 10% diffrence between each weight with the quota weight having to match what is put in the logbook on the vessel each 24hr day, and this is done on the vessel with no scales to weight the fish.
The maximum fine for a logbook error is £50,000.
With taking in mind a logbook error could cost you that amount of money ,the skipper naturally under estimate in there logbooks to make sure they don't go over quota.

Lets say
carlseawolf

Lets say a skipper under estimates a box of fish for each species he has quota for and it came to a total of 10 boxes.
Thes 10 boxes are then short on his yearly quota and if the whole fleet is doing the same the scientist look at the logbooks and make the conclusion that there must be less fish avalible than they first thought so cut the quota the following year to save the stocks, and then the cycle starts again. (this has been going on since 1971).
This what i recon is the answer ; they shoul;d do away with certain species quota and give the boat a quota for all fish to be caught for a year and all fish will be kept aboard againt the quota so there will be no disguards.
Norway uses this system and all fish not for human consumtion will be put into fishmeal for fertilizer or animal feed , this could be given a minimum price by the goverment to aid the fishermen.
The positive side of this idea is the ease in which it can be implemented as days at sea would be abolished , fishernen could work better weather so making life safer.
tt
milkmaid

talking to a fisherman today he was saying roughly what carlseawolf
was saying the 2 days a week was because the boat i was talking about uses their quota that way
cliff bay in uig has a no trawler policy ,
and fishing is improving big time ,in the bay at the font hoddock is returning i've been told ,the bay used to be trawled by spanish trawlers 2 of them twin trawling
carlseawolf

To finish this of there would only have to be one fine for anyone dumping at sea and that would be to take the estimated amount dumped and reduce there quota by the amount for that year.
By doing this fishermen will take the action to reduce small fish been caught as the value would be low against the quota they can catch , against the value of bigger fish for the same amount of quota.

May i just add this point about closed fishing areas , in the north sea they closed an area called the plaice box to protect the plaice and the dutch fishermen fish around this closed of area and have had record catches.
Ever scientist thought the box had worked and the plaice had been given the space to spawn , but infact when they survaid the seabed the plaice where no where to be seen, they had infact gone outside the box where the trawlers where working because they reilide on the trawlers to dig up the worms on the seabed to feed.
sean

Thanks Carl, that's a really interesting set of posts.
I think that we can probably all agree that the system as it stands is a mess. The tricky bit is working out how to put a better system in place.
crofter

sean wrote:
The tricky bit is working out how to put a better system in place.


There is a good example not too far away...

Quote:
Discarding is prohibited in Norwegian waters ... Norway has for more than 20 years advocated internationally, and especially in its relations with the EU, for the prohibitions of discards of fish.


In that time, more than 20 million tonnes of fish dumped as a result of EU reulations!
Hairyloon

crofter wrote:
sean wrote:
crofter wrote:
Despite what most people believe, cod are not endangered, in a year or two even the fisheries scientists will agree with that.


What do you base that on? It may well be true for all I know, but I'd quite like to see some sort of evidence.


Ask a fisherman.

It depends what you mean by "endangered".
If you mean "in danger of extinction", then no, I do not think they are endangered.

But anyone who does not believe they are overfished is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Here is a study showing that fish stocks are less than one thousandth of what they were 100 years back.
crofter

Hairyloon wrote:

But anyone who does not believe they are overfished is living in cloud cuckoo land.


What is your definition of "overfished"?

All indications are that the cod recovery plan is working. Yes, there were more fish 100 years ago, but you could say the same about forests, buffalo, oil....

Believe it or not, fishermen are not greedy pirates who are bent on catching the last fish out of the sea.

Quote:
The Fishermen know what is happening out in the seas better than any scientist or eco-activist will ever know. When I was a scientist it took me 4-5 years to convince the senior guys to really listen to the Fishermen which they have been doing for 10-12 years now. I used to get accurate catch rates , where the fish were caught , told when they had come across large hauls of smaller fish , etc ,etc and that information was given freely because the Fishermen knew that I had been a fisherman myself
carlseawolf

I personally beleive that some species are under threat from over fishing and if we are lucky the powers that be will do something positive about the situation before it's to late.

It is often put across that fishermen are gready and to some point they are, as they are paid a share of value of the catch, no fish no money,they have to be at sea to make a living and there is no dole money if they are stuck in for a month or sick pay if you are taken ill.
Taking that into acount they also pay the highest N.I stamp of £7 a week and don't see much for it.

The other thing fishermen are well documented of doing is earning £900 a week and getting away without paying there taxes ,This is not true as more fishermen are leaving fishing due to lack of money than any other reason,and my last years wages as a mate on a 90' trawler on 12% share was just over £10,000 before tax.
carlseawolf

Conservation is a beautiful word !

I love this word as it mean putting less pressure on the fish stocks for future generations to have more fish and bigger catches, there is not a fisherman in the world who would not disagree with this statement , including myself.

Here is the delemer , we are an island that has joined other nations in a fishing policy where we have the majority of the fishing grounds but the smallest of fishing fleet to fish it,with the only protected ground inside the 12 mile limit set aside for small UK vessels.

To conserve fish all nations must agree to stop fishing for a certain time / species at the same time to make it work,but in general this never happens.

Take in the 80's the UK goverment came up with an idea to save the cod by banning all UK registered vessels from landing any cod at market as that would take the preasure of th stocks,all that happened was the french made a small fortune selling us cod they had caught of our coast in the first place,
carlseawolf

To put the fishies in a land point of view. you own a piece of land and in the middle off this land is a forest and you say to all the local gun clubs you can all shoot on my land but not in the forest.
Give them about 6 months of shooting the surounding area and it will get to the point of nothing left so they start to look towards the forest where all the animals are hiding in safety.

Now all it takes is for one of these hunters to be short of money and is hunting for his tea but there is nothing outside of the forest , the point now arises of do i enter the forest to bag my dinner or go home and have no tea. (This is what the fisherman faces at sea every day ,no fish no dinner)

Sooner or latter someone will poach into the forest to get a bigger bag because that is human nature and then there is no stopping the destruction ( and by the time the land owner spots whats going on and trys to stop it the damage will be to far gone to be reversed) And this is what is happening in UK waters every day of every year.
carlseawolf

What has to be done

To control conservation in UK waters we must first take back the seas around britian and reinstate the 200 mile limit on fishing for UK registered boats only.

Second the goverment needs to find out the true state of the fish stocks from the people who catch the fish not the logbooks they fill in , as they only tell them what the goverment wants to hear.

Third , a conservation based on scientific fact that will be seen to work by all parties not just a means of making the goverment look good on there green credentials.

Fourth , all uk caught fish to be landed into the UK, as this will make a demand on fish by are EU partners as spanish flag ships would have to land in the UK instead of taking back to spain where we see no financial benifit in the fish been caught by our neighbours.

And the last thing is to ditch the species quota for a total tonnage quota with no disguards , we no there is a market on the continent for small fish so lets use this to make money from the millions of tons of dead fish thrown over the side each year
carlseawolf

What is your definition of "overfished"?

The definition of a species been over fished is when more fish are killed than the estimated fish population can breed in each year.

This is based on the amount of fish been killed been inaccurate (logbook entries) and scientific studies taken aboard fishing vessels afew times of the year.

It's a bit like trying to set a quota of the amount of bunnies in a field , ask the shooter and he will give a small figure , send in a scientist to study them and depending what time of day will give diffrent results.( just like fishing the full picture can never be know as it will also depend on male to female ratio)
paul1963

Really interesting to read your views on this subject Carlseawolf. I have been watching a channel 5 series on maritime matters recently and am now able to understand the background issues that are in place when fishing boats are boarded and catches checked.

What is coming across to me from this whole thread is that fishing, rather than being an honest form of providing food from times immemorial has become a largely political issue, with a bit of environmentalsim chucked into the pot and is a right muddle.

Sad times for our fishermen. Sad
carlseawolf

The politics started back in 1971 the EU was first formed and the common fisheries policy was dreamt up.

In 1971 it was post codwar in britian and the fishing fleet was at it's lowest with very few boats at sea and no offical body speaking for the fishermen, This is when the goverment body now know as DEFRA went to the EU to talk fishing and farming quotas.

This meeting is why we are such a state as the fishing fleet was a small player in british industary so the goverment used the fishing groundas a lever to get a better deal for there farmers .( after all there are more farms owned by members of goverment than fishing boats) and so did the rest of the big players.

This proccess of sorting out the common fisheries policy only took 2 weeks to complete , where as the for mentioned logbook has 5 diffrent coloured pages to be handed in to certain goverment bodies depending on where you land took them about 2 years to decide the 5 colours.
To put it simply the fishing industary was sold out to save the farmers as they where deamed more important.
carlseawolf

Policing the seas around britian!

As with any police force they can only prosercute you if they catch you do something wrong.
You may have seen the tv programmes where the fisheries are boarding boats form rubber inflatables and looking like they are saving the seas around britian , but it's all a show to make the general public feel good that something is been done.

This is how it realy is , it's not a stealth boat that sneaks up on the fleet and catches them doing bad , instead it's about 150' long built like a block of flats and pours smoke out of it's stack that can be seen for 12 miles on a good day.

To counter this the fisherman has radar that can see up to 60 mile that is smart enough to tell him the course and speed of a vessel long before you can visually see it, they talk on radio and phones to update the movement of the vessel so they know where they are at all times.
carlseawolf

The main thorn in the side is the planes as you don't see them ,and because you have to put your position in your log book each day there is a chance of been caught out if you say your somewhere you never went to.

The fisheries police are like any other police in the fact if your get boarded to many times you can claim harasement if they find nothing wrong , this intern allow you to do what you like for a small amount of time as they don't want to be in court on an harasement charge as it doesn't look good on the public image.

Every local seafish area out to the 6 mile limit has it's own rules as well as the ones made by DEFRA so quite often the two will be diffrent on the same subject.
Many of these small seafish areas run what we call an inshore boat to check up on the smaller fishing craft , but only run them for a few days a month due to budget cuts..
crofter

Quote:
THE SCOTTISH Fishermen's Federation has welcomed the new 'FishFight' campaign launched by food campaigner and celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall to end the practice of the discarding of fish.

Responding to the launch of the campaign, SFF chief executive Bertie Armstrong described the discarding of fish as a 'madness' that highlighted the need for urgent reform of regulations in the Common Fisheries Policy, which are at the root of the problem.

He said the difference between this campaign and a plethora of previous initiatives is that this one recognises the real underlying problem of unfit regulation. The problem does not lie in the behaviour of fishermen but rather with the detail of the regulations - which must be complied with to stay within the law.

"We wholeheartedly agree that the discarding of fish is madness and we welcome this exposure to the public of the problems embedded in the present CFP rules, which completely fail to take an ecosystem approach to a mixed environment such as the North Sea," he said.
Bodger

There could well be a mixture of motivations at work here.

First from Hugh, as he seeks more publicity in his attempt to become the official UK saviour of all things foody. Secondly from the fishermen as they basically look for ways of landing more fish than they are currently allowed to.
If we believe in quotas as a way of helping to save our fisheries, why not allow the fisherman to land and sell the under sized fish but then take that weight away from their total quota ?

The CFP is obviously not working. Its a great shame that the UK is not allowed to police its own fishing policy.
carlseawolf

I agree hugh will feather his own nest during the publicity of this cause , but without food champions like him who has the ability to turn heads and start asking questions the cause would never come to light .

I agree that no more tonnage of fish should be landed than at present but the type of fish landed should be changed to all disguards , and where possible find a market for small fish and anything else put to fish meal backed by a goverment minimum price.

This fish challenge if hugh does it right will save what is left of the british fishing industary for the future , but if done wrong and he gets no public support it will just make the fishermen lawless pirates in the eyes of the general public.
crofter

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/north-sea-fisheries-madness-2137103.html

Quote:
Feel compelled to write something on this as I know a bit about it. Discards occur for two reasons -the fish are either undersized or over quota. The known targeting of undersized fish is unforgivable but with red diesel at 45 pence per litre i can assure everyone that fishermen do not target fish they cannot retain if they can avoid it. Large mesh nets (130+mm) are now the norm as not only does it let small fish escape it reduces drag in the net and therefore reduces fuel costs. Over quota discarding is an entirely EU made catastrophe that basically affects fishermen depending on where they come from within the EU. Interestingly enough around the same time as cod became an issue for the EU it was considered hake was also in trouble. The cod recovery plan has been ongoing for almost 7 years whilst the hake recovery plan lasted one until hake made a supposed recovery. Everyone within the industry would sign a sworn affidavit that cod recovered at almost the same time but funnily enough the EU's scientists didn't agree with those that caught cod but did with those that caught hake. Who catches the bulk of the hake - Spain, cod - UK. Go ask a Spaniard how much hake they discarded before they landed home in Vigo. If this sounds far fetched also consider the deep water species blue ling which is one of the totem species of the green team and a species of great importance to France. Go check out the quota recommendation for this species next year as opposed to the species caught by the vast majority of UK fishermen. The industry is being taken to the cleaners for no more reason than it is of no great economic importance to the UK and is expendable in negotiations with our European partners. This becomes a much easier sell to the general public when those who work within the industry are portrayed as rabid lunatics who will not be content until they have plundered the sea of all life. Think about it no fish, no livelihood. We're maybe out in the styx but we're not that thick!
crofter

crofter wrote:
Despite what most people believe, cod are not endangered, in a year or two even the fisheries scientists will agree with that.


What do you base that on? It may well be true for all I know, but I'd quite like to see some sort of evidence.



Quote:
Cod stocks in the North sea have increased significantly in the past six years, according to a new report.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-18646660
Hairyloon

First from Hugh, as he seeks more publicity in his attempt to become the official UK saviour of all things foody.

How could he attempt such a task without publicity?
Is he doing it just for the publicity? Does it matter why he is doing it if he gets results?

Quote:
Secondly from the fishermen as they basically look for ways of landing more fish than they are currently allowed to.

Are they?
I understood the idea was that they aim to catch less fish and land the same amount.
Quote:
If we believe in quotas as a way of helping to save our fisheries, why not allow the fisherman to land and sell the under sized fish but then take that weight away from their total quota ?

Flipping big "if" for a start.
Secondly, the best way to kill a fishery is to start catching immature fish.
Shane

Secondly, the best way to kill a fishery is to start catching immature fish. I think the point is that the under-sized fish are being caught anyway, but under the current regulations they get thrown back dead.

Out this way, it appears that the fisherman get to land whatever is caught. I've seen sharks, manta rays and all sorts in the wholesale fish market. It's a bit shocking at first, but I guess if they've caught the fish anyway, especially one as big as a manta ray, they're probably not going to survive if thrown back into the water. Not a lot goes to waste, by the looks of it, as they're normally pretty much sold out if you leave your visit too late.
crofter

Secondly, the best way to kill a fishery is to start catching immature fish.

Yes, that is correct, although this is not the issue in the north sea because of restrictions on net mesh size, the use of square mesh escape panels for juvenile fish and the introduction of real time closures when large numbers of cod are found in an area, also juvenile real time closures when juvenile cod, haddock, whiting and saithe are more than 10% of the catch (or 7.5% if the catch is more than 75% cod) The problem in a mixed fishery occurs when a boat uses all their quota for one species but still have quota for another - they cannot avoid catching valuable mature fish (eg cod) but they are not allowed to land them (no quota) so they must be dumped back into the sea dead.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Fishing
Page 1 of 1
Internet Advertising Array Array Online Advertising Array