Greenpeace

[LONG_KEELER]

Just looked at Marine Traffic.

The ESPERANZA is now in Amsterdam. We will have to wait and see if she goes "bouldering" again.

Interesting that she is listed as a Fishery Patrol Vessel .

 

[Gary Fox]

There certainly are some responsible fishermen around, but it's not an essential for the job. I am not convinced that the hazards of the occupation excuse the wholesale pillaging and destruction of a common resource...

How should we protect our bits of the common resource?
British fishermen are heavily restrained by quotas, but these quotas are not enforced upon large foreign vessels.
These will have convoluted registration and ownership, and be expensive and time-consuming to prosecute through courts.
The Royal Navy is the only solution, but our weak and cowardly leaders are scared to use it.
Ironically, the Argentine Navy recently and effectively attacked some Chinese vessels illegally fishing in Arg waters...

 

[JumbleDuck]

How should we protect our bits of the common resource?

Good question. Banning fishing completely in large areas of the sea seems look a good idea. Maybe even heaving in a few big rocks to deter those who ignore the law?

 

[dom]

According to the Greenpace website, "The boulders have been painted using non-toxic paint with the names of Greenpeace supporters, including donors and even some high profile supporters such as Thandie Newton, Paloma Faith and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall"

In my view bottom trawling is a scourge, but direct action outside of the normal legal channels is problematic:

Britain has a longstanding and deep relationship with the sea; Do we want a new guerilla enforced Greenpeace system?​

Are fisherman now free to exact retribution against these institutions and individuals under a moral framework of their choosing?​

​

In what other circumstances is direct action against the personal safety and livelihoods of those we don't agree with okay?​

​

Are we on the road to a Capitol Hill incident?​

​

Do we want a celebrity policed society?​

​

 

[Gary Fox]

According to the Greenpace website, "The boulders have been painted using non-toxic paint with the names of Greenpeace supporters, including donors and even some high profile supporters such as Thandie Newton, Paloma Faith and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall"

In my view bottom trawling is a scourge, but direct action outside of the normal legal channels is problematic:

Britain has a longstanding and deep relationship with the sea; Do we want a new guerilla enforced Greenpeace system?​

Are fisherman now free to exact retribution against these institutions and individuals under a moral framework of their choosing?​

​

In what other circumstances is direct action against the personal safety and livelihoods of those we don't agree with okay?​

​

Are we on the road to a Capitol Hill incident?​

​

Do we want a celebrity policed society?​

​

Good questions.
We shouldn't allow Greenpeace to enforce, or try and enforce, anything at all. It will escalate in unpredictable ways, and they will destroy any remaining credibility. Especially if unintended people are victims. (Dead activists will be treated as martyrs).

Why shouldn't a fisherman say: 'If I was impeded by Greenpeace lunatics while trying to feed my family through fishing, I would bring weapons on my next trip.'

(Capitol Hill is irrelevant, I don't know why you included it).

The very last thing we want is 'celebrities' getting involved in the adult world!

Greenpeace activists are by definition fanatical. The males are trying to prove themselves, and the females are suffering a perversion of their motherhood instinct by substituting whales for babies.
This is a grossly over-simplified, but basically accurate, description of the evolutionary psychology behind such movements.

 

[DJE]

The very last thing we want is 'celebrites' getting involved in the adult world!

They - and the press - are already dictating some areas of school meals and vaccination policy.

 

[Stemar]

Well, we seem to be pretty much agreed that we don't much like Greenpeace, but we like the big, uncontrolled trawlers even less.

Suppose now that our government which, as with most governments, can do no wrong in some eyes, and no right in others, were to declare all trawling by ships over, say, 20 metres illegal within 12 miles of our coast or, better still, agree with the EU and ban it in the whole European continental shelf, and put those same rocks in to stop it. Would you support it or not?

 

[dom]

Suppose now that our government

.....were to declare all trawling by ships over, say, 20 metres illegal within 12 miles of our coast or, better still, agree with the EU and ban it in the whole European continental shelf, and put those same rocks in to stop it. Would you support it or not?

Not sure rocks are a great 'solution', but something along those lines which included a ban on bottom trawling, then yes, absolutely.

Equally, if a fishing boat now goes under and lives are endangered/lost I would expect the Greenpeace activists to be arrested and charged.

 

[Gary Fox]

Anyone know the depth where the boulders are?

 

[RobbieW]

My view is that Greenpeace perform a vital service as an environmental 'conscience'. As an organisation they started by 'bearing witness' to the various nuclear tests in the south pacific and putting themselves in harms way. Non violent direct action has long been the way they operate and they generally choose highly visible campaigns to make a specific point - its got this forum discussing a topic most feel should stop anyway. I dont give blanket approval but in their sphere I think they are the most effective campaigners around

Old joke - Why do the French not eat Kiwi fruit ? They cant stand the green piece in the middle

 

[Gary Fox]

Not sure rocks are a great 'solution', but something along those lines which included a ban on bottom trawling, then yes, absolutely.

Equally, if a fishing boat now goes under and lives are endangered/lost I would expect the Greenpeace activists to be arrested and charged.

+1

 

[Mark-1]

Well, we seem to be pretty much agreed that we don't much like Greenpeace, but we like the big, uncontrolled trawlers even less.

Suppose now that our government which, as with most governments, can do no wrong in some eyes, and no right in others, were to declare all trawling by ships over, say, 20 metres illegal within 12 miles of our coast or, better still, agree with the EU and ban it in the whole European continental shelf, and put those same rocks in to stop it. Would you support it or not?

Yup, if it was democratically agreed then great, but that's nothing to do with this situation.

If we did decide to physically prevent trawling would rocks with no recovery mechanism be the right solution? One child dies of hunger every ten seconds: (The World Counts) Given that would we really want to deny ourselves a food source in perpetuity, we might want it in future?

So would it make more sense to use something recoverable so we can trawl in future if we need to?

Do rocks on a muddy seabed even work? Assuming they do stand proud of the mud, do they really deter the sorts of trawlers working many kilometres offshore?

These are all considerations that can be taken into account *if* you do things democratically.

 

[Rappey]

Sea shepards (similar to greenpeace) did many seasons trying to stop the Japanese killing up to 400 whales per season in protected Antarctica under the pretence of " for scientific purposes"
After years of harassing the whalers they succeeded in stopping them.
While not using legal means the activists do bring attention to illegal activities that governments turn a blind eye to.

 

[chrishscorp]

Not sure rocks are a great 'solution', but something along those lines which included a ban on bottom trawling, then yes, absolutely.

Equally, if a fishing boat now goes under and lives are endangered/lost I would expect the Greenpeace activists to be arrested and charged.

The UK govt should ban anything over 20M from within our 12 mile limit and ENFORCE it 1st visit by some nice chaps in a rib from a Warship to explain the ban the 2nd visit a 4 inch shell a 1000yds of their bows

 

[RJJ]

How should we protect our bits of the common resource?

Giving fishermen meaningful and long-term skin-in-the-game.

Fishing and conservation - A rising tide | Science & technology | The Economist

Of course this also means that boo-hiss capitalists can get to own the quota leaving those who do the (dangerous, antisocial, tiring) work for wages, in turn risking boo-hiss inequality. But I'd argue that's better than doing the precarious work for low wages while also taking the capital risk of running the darn boat and managing the bureaucracy.

More importantly it also leads to the incentive for better behaviours like this:

Catching halibut - Wiki-fishing | United States | The Economist

There would seem to be rather different economic problems as regards migratory fish. But my understanding is the state of the ocean floor is more closely-related to non-migratory species, where it seems ITQs work rather well.

So much for the supply side. On the demand side, the sad fact is that consumers don't take much responsibility for our decisions. While some outlets will happily tell you where their fish has come from and (for what it's worth) MSC-status, there are plenty that don't, and don't struggle for customers.

 

[25931]

Unfortunately nothing has been done democratically to stop the beam trawlers which have been a problem for fifty years.
I remember the horror of seeing when diving in Morecambe Bay in the seventies the ploughed field effect caused by the Dutch beam trawlers. In those days Fleetwood was a fishing port, now it is a marina.
You might not like Greenpeace but no one else has done anything in the past half century so what do you suggest ?

 

[dom]

The boulders have been placed in an MPA, it is illegal to trawl there.

If you wish to to trawl illegally in a prohibbited area and you snag your nets whos fault is it......

The UK govt should ban anything over 20M from within our 12 mile limit and ENFORCE it 1st visit by some nice chaps in a rib from a Warship to explain the ban the 2nd visit a 4 inch shell a 1000yds of their bows

If a shoplifter steals something from a shop, that is illegal. The shopkeeper has, however, no right to shoot him/her, or harm them beyond the use of reasonable force. It is also illegal to lay traps for the purpose of physically harming them if they return. The same laws apply to Greenpeace.

And why do people fantasize about the RN emulating the Myanmar police and blasting live 4" shells either, at or into the vicinity of unarmed civilian vessels?

 

[chrishscorp]

If a shoplifter steals something from a shop, that is illegal. The shopkeeper has, however, no right to shoot him/her, or harm them beyond the use of reasonable force. It is also illegal to lay traps for the purpose of physically harming them if they return. The same laws apply to Greenpeace.

If I steal a four pack of beans from the local coop, those beans will be replaced with new stock regardless of the right or wrongs of my actions.
If you factory trawler the dogger bank you are catching this weeks fish and next weeks fish and the fish for the next several years as its a breeding ground and growth area


And why do people fantasize about the RN emulating the Myanmar police and blasting live 4" shells either, at or into the vicinity of unarmed civilian vessels?

LOL yes we would have to find a RN boat that was free to start with.
Far better of buying this beastie and painting her grey, she could 'nudge' them out of the area

Boats for sale Russia, boats for sale, used boat sales, Commercial Vessels For Sale Ice Breaker built Canada - Apollo Duck

 

[LONG_KEELER]

Agriculture and fishing have massive lobbying power in parliament so don't expect too much change soon.

Human nature, coupled with new technology in fishing has led to predictable outcomes.

When it is seen that limits ,democratic arrived at, are not adhered to , what we are seeing is likely to continue and many are likely to support it.

For some reason, fishermen are looked upon as heroes who go out risking there lives for the land lubbers that
would somehow starve and die without them. This is probably true in third world countries and we know what
outsiders can do to affect that. Fishing also appears to sound ok in the Bible , perhaps that has something to do with it too. New generations are likely to view it differently and probably are our only hope.

 

[DJE]

The boulders have been placed in an MPA, it is illegal to trawl there.

If you wish to to trawl illegally in a prohibbited area and you snag your nets whos fault is it......

The UK govt should ban anything over 20M from within our 12 mile limit and ENFORCE it 1st visit by some nice chaps in a rib from a Warship to explain the ban the 2nd visit a 4 inch shell a 1000yds of their bows

Is it illegal though? Greenpeace refer to it as destructive but they don't claim that it is illegal. From their web site:

Other than our new boulder barrier, there are no restrictions on industrial fishing in Offshore Brighton. If you think that makes no sense in an area which is supposed to be protected, you’re right. But sadly, this is the case for many of the UK’s so-called Marine Protected Areas.

This lack of real protection means all sorts of destructive industrial fishing boats can operate in Offshore Brighton. In 2019, bottom trawlers spent 3099 hours fishing in Offshore Brighton, making it one of the UK’s most heavily bottom trawled protected areas.