Here is the news....

[gpj]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...out&li=AAnZ9Ug

[John63]

To be fair, i may have emptied the catchment area.

Time to move on to new hunting ground ?

[F.P.]

Time to move on to new hunting ground ?

No, either needs to protect the door from the bloody stains or re-paint it more often...

[cazyoung]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...out&li=AAnZ9Ug

[steelemonkey]

Time to move on to new hunting ground ?

Oy, don't encourage her. It's all right for some of you living abroad....

[Chrisch]

I'm never sure what people mean by 'sustainable' in this context. ...

The "needs" of a fishing vessel and crew in a capitalist society are to make revenue. A million+ pound boat and thousands bill in diesel are the start points before the catch pays the crew, skipper and owners, plus any financial charges on the capital employed. The imperative therefore is to catch enough revenue that there is a surplus over the overheads and variable costs. Any such surplus also needs to have a contingency to cover repairs and an element of profit that can be retained to offset bad trips, bad weather and depreciation of capital equipment. In that context one must consider nets as part of the running costs as they are worn out and lost over time.

This is how business operates and without government subsidies there is no other model. Without a universal basic income the share catch fishermen must catch enough revenue to cover their personal costs; food, housing, transport, education, children and clothing, plus enough revenue to have a life in addition to the basics. In today's world perhaps what, 30 grand a head?

"Sustainable" in that context means the ability to generate those revenues. To catch enough revenue that the business model is functional. Enough raw material exists that the revenues are attainable. Enough raw material exists that the variable costs of power are proportionality less than the revenue captured.

Nowhere in the model is there any monetary value to the environment. This is the model of business that modern capitalism runs on. When you fly off to some exotic dive destination the cost to the environment is not part of the cost of the trip. When you drive to work everyday the cost to the environment is not borne by the driver or the employer.

This economic model is not "sustainable". It cannot continue beyond the point at which the environmental cost exceeds the ability of the environment to absorb the cost without collapse. The collapse of the marine ecosystem is happening in real time, right now. In addition to the issues of fishing there are many other problems that are being ignored. The acidification of the water by carbonic acid due to burning fossil hydrocarbons. The massive pollution by microplastics. Pollution by agriculture, nitrates and other run-off. The destruction of large parts of the sea by soil erosion caused by deforestation and logging both legal and the huge illegal market.

So to me, the answer as to what is "sustainable" is no activity whatsoever. Nothing. No small vessels, no large ones. Angling only on a strict catch and return basis, or perhaps a maximum of one fish per angler per trip quota system. (This system works with inland trout fisheries quite well).

This will not - I imagine - be very popular, but it is the only answer.

[Divemouse]

How about no angling at all? How can dragging a fish out of the water for fun be justified if catching it for money isn't? Catch and release is by no means 100% non lethal.

[steelemonkey]

How about no angling at all? How can dragging a fish out of the water for fun be justified if catching it for money isn't? Catch and release is by no means 100% non lethal.

Angling satisfies the hunting instinct which, if denied, comes out as aggressive tendencies which are often shown towards other people, especially on the internet.

[F.P.]

How about no angling at all? How can dragging a fish out of the water for fun be justified if catching it for money isn't? Catch and release is by no means 100% non lethal.

I agree with DM here. I'm not happy with 'Coarse' fishing where anglers play with fish when the fish take the baited hook and then thrown back. I'm not even sure that I approve of the 'so-called' benefits of anglers taking note of what happens to and 'protecting' the river and canal environment.
'Game fishing'; Chrish refers to above, I don't mind on the understanding that the anglers do not through back what they don't want and only take & dispatch* sufficient for their own eating.

*'dispatch' - kill quickly and painlessly.

[Chrisch]

How about no angling at all? How can dragging a fish out of the water for fun be justified if catching it for money isn't? Catch and release is by no means 100% non lethal.

I would have no objection but the problem is that people generally care much less about the environment than money and animal welfare is almost non existent compared to money and many people (incorrectly) think fish are without any feeling or self awareness. With some angling activity there would at least be much less of an argument that commercial fishing is the only way a "man and a boat" can make money.

Recreational angling and diving provide an income (if you care nothing about the CO2 of course) which will offset the endless moaning and carping ( ) that will be the inevitable outcome of a ban on commercial fishing.