...very fishy

Back on December 11, I discussed a little about the problems of over-fishing and the stress it was putting on fish stocks. Several scientific surveys and studies, including one by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, cited the danger.

Well, as one commercial fisher I heard recently put it, what do "all those college boys with their degrees" know about anything, anyway?

The 25 fisheries ministers of the European Union have rejected a plan to close areas of the North Sea to cod fishing. And for the fifth year running they have ignored scientists' pleas to stop cod fishing in the North Sea entirely, instead allowing a catch for 2005 of 27,300 tonnes, the same as 2004,

New Scientist reports.

After the now traditional all-night session, UK fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw claimed that the deal met the requirements of both the fisheries industry and conservation. Cod quotas for the North Sea have been slashed nearly five-fold since 1999, and fishermen's associations insist the cod is now recovering.

But the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, a scientific body based in Copenhagen which advises the European Commission on fisheries management, says that while quotas have fallen, catches have not fallen much, as up to two-thirds may be unreported.

Furthermore, the number of breeding fish is well below what is needed to maintain the stock, says ICES, and the number of young cod produced in the last three years has been "well below average".

The ICES recommends stopping cod fishing in the North Sea "until there is strong evidence of recovery." But the ministers insisted that would be politically impossible for hard-hit fishing industries and instead of even pursuing an attempt as a middle path proposed by the European Commission, one that would not have worked but at least was an attempt, the ministers instituted only minor cutbacks in fishing days and quotas while allowing the overall catch to remain the same.

"It is clear that the Commission cannot conceive or implement measures to protect the stocks in its charge, not to mention allowing them to rebuild," says Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, a prominent fisheries biologist. He told New Scientist: "The fishing industry will only suffer from this."

The most telling remark was that of marine biologist Charlotte Mogensen of the Worldwide Fund for Nature: "You really have to ask if the ministers are serious about saving the cod." They're not. They're serious about saving their political butts.