by x » Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:23 pm
"While always open to correction - all input appreciated, my interpretation of our marine protection vessel coverage is based on the following perspective. In addition, you'll find that a lot of the figures quoted as fact, if looked at from different perspectives, can be used to support any number of different viewpoint. A variation on the lies, damn, lies and statistics theme.
So, the 6 (or is it 8? information varies) Naval vessels are just that - property of the Navy and tasked occasionally with fishery protection. They are often used for courtesy visits, drug interdiction, SAR, pollution control and other non-fishery protection/enforcement related tasks. Better than nothing, but not dedicated fishery protection vessels. I'd like to see a dedicated force.
Correct me again if I'm wrong, but operating only inside the 12 mile limit the two LPVs would be poorly positioned to check log books, catch and mesh sizes of the hoard of (mostly) foreign vessels trawling, longlining and gillnetting the place bare outside the 12 mile limit - which is where the vast majority of damage to fish stocks is done. And with a coastline length of about 3700 odd miles, even these are a bit thin on the ground.
Most of the foreign vessels do not land their catch here so do not put themselves in a position to get boarded and inspected. You used to hear of the Navy detaining boats for fishing offences, but I can't remember the last time I heard this. I'll need to follow the trade press a bit more closely. What makes it onto the TV., papers and radio anywhere is only what you are supposed to hear, as far as I can make out.
But I do remember on a few occasions thinking that the fines and penalties that were imposed were trivial. We should have confiscated boat, gear and catch, jailed the skippers and deported the crews. In most cases I think the boats were back at sea the same day as the hearing. Must look up the old news reports.
I'm sure the host of RIBs are great for a lot of the near inshore work but as the vast majority of our waters are outside this, whether we have 13 or 30 is almost immaterial. And with a coastline length of about 3700 odd miles, even these are a bit thin on the ground. Now, if that looks like a paltry level of protection, consider that the Marine Institute says that
""Ireland's marine resource is over 220 million acres ? more than ten times her land area"".
I'll accept that we can trim off the area covered by the two LPVs and 30 RIBs and probably not all of the remainder is suitable for fishing effort and tat area doesn't have to be protected as such - but whatever protection it is going to get has to come from the 6 (or is it 8?) Naval vessels who do not do this full time. If the two LPVs do 11000 nautical miles per year between them that's what? 2 round trips of Ireland each anually at a generous estimate. Not much coverage there, then. I do more mileage yearly in my car....
I think that with the best will in the world, the fishery protection resources we have are nowhere near adequete. I offer as proof for this shocking hypothesis only the fact that the fish are vanishing year on year. We all moan about it, so it must be true. Otherwise we're all just not really very good at this angling lark.
You are absolutely spot on about the way quotas are calculated, Conor. Even if we were to take the scientific calculation and recommendations as 100% accurate, as we saw with the salmon TAC this year, the Minister decided on advice from the National Salmon Commission that the TAC ought to be higher and raised the quota above the scientifically recommended TAC.
I think we need to look hard at the legislation we need and the resources (and political willpower) to implement it. The bottom line is, however you mangle your interpretation of the statistical information, that fish are getting scarcer....."