'Positive' outcome from fishing quotas talks

See the news article below. What's your opinion? Is it really that positive? Is this just another example of fisheries ministers not being able to live up to the demands of what is required to sustainably manage what's left of the oceans depleted fish stocks? I personally don't really know.

What do you think?
John D.

"Negotiations between EU fisheries ministers on agreeing fishing quotas for next year concluded in Brussels overnight.

Irish fishing industry representatives said that some of the tough measures proposed by the European Commission in advance of the talks have been avoided.

In the lead up to these talks, the commission had proposed quota cuts to many of the species targeted by Irish vessels and a restriction on the days allowed at sea off the southeast coast.

In the whole, the industry was facing a 22% reduction in quota.

The outcome of the talks, however, will mean a much smaller cut of 0.9%.

The Minister of State with responsibility for Fisheries, Sean Connick, said it was a very positive outcome in view of the proposals.

He also said that Ireland had secured two-thirds of the overall quota on the boarfish fishery off the west coast, which is relatively new but a lucrative species for the Irish industry.

Fishermen's representatives said that they were relatively pleased with the outcome and that the cuts were not as severe as feared.

The commission had proposed cutting the cod quota by over 50%. The outcome of the talks has led to a reduced cut of 25%.

The prawn quota was proposed to be reduced by 17%, but a 3% cut has been agreed.

A 50% cut on whiting was also proposed. However, the minister said that they had secured a 15% increase on whiting and haddock quotas.

A 10% increase for the mackerel quota has also been agreed."

I think every angler noticed the shortage of mackerel this year more than others so increasing that quota sounds daft. Also the increase on whiting and haddock quotas doesn't sound good as they are two species of white fish that are fairly hard hit by the nets already. I'm wondering where the 0.9% cut comes in but no matter what species it affects, i doubt it will make much of a difference.

do they even have any data on what the boarfish life cycle is like - what its numbers have been like historically - what are they basing their lucrative - overall quota on

probably no more than its a new fish to exploit - its there we have a quota - fish it out before someone else gets it

Here's a little bit of food for thought. It's a point I copied from a post Jonathan Dukes (aka 'teacher') submitted to another thread on the site. I don't mean to come across as pessimist, I'm just being real. While a cut in any shape or form is keenly welcomed it's important to keep a view of the bigger picture. Anyway here's the point:

Following negotiations in Brussels there has been a cut in fish quotas. They have been cut as an average by 0.9%.
The EU commission, based on the best scientific advice available, which cost many hundreds of millions of Euros to assemble, recommended an average cut across all species of about 22%. This was recommended to try to preserve the stocks and therefore the long term future of those people whose jobs depend on them. The Minister and his Department ignored the commissions advice and dug their heels in coming away with virtually no cut at all. Once again short term concerns took priority over the long term future of those in the commercial sector and the long term protection of the fish stocks that belong to us all. The fact that the FIF were happy with the outcome must tell you something. Sadly the concerns of the small inshore fishermen who have the ability to fish in a sustainable manner have been ignored again.

Regards,
John D.