Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall: 'I want to dictate the taste of the nation' - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall: 'I want to dictate the taste of the nation'

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/...chef-1-5433352

    Skippers declare war on TV chef

    Published on Thursday 21 February 2013 13:43

    A TV chef has been accused of misleading the public with his new campaign against the impact of fishing upon the health of British seas.

    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall was widely backed when he supported moves to ban discards, but the industry now appears to have turned its back on him following the launch of his new campaign, aired on Channel 4 last Thursday.

    John Clark, skipper of Fraserburgh trawler Reliance II BF 800, which was built at Parkol, told the Gazette: “Don’t believe anything Hugh has said. He has completely misled the public with his programme. What’s the point in sticking marine protected areas willy-nilly all over the North Sea? And in doing so put thousands of fishermen on the dole. Don’t let Hugh miff the British public by believing his lies, he is just lining his own pockets and boosting his ego.”

    Hugh’s Fish Fight sees the TV chef, who has previously targeted battery-farmed chickens, focus upon the fishing industry.

    He is backing the creation of 127 marine conservation zones, including one at Runswick Bay, but some of his claims have been angrily refuted by the fishing industry.

    More than 800,000 people signed the chef’s petition to end discards, but his latest call to end what he perceives as wanton destruction caused by the scallop dredging on the sea bed has been widely attacked.

    An official complaint sent to Channel 4 by skipper Chaz Bruce, who hosts Facebook group The Real Fish Fight, accused the River Cottage chef of misleading the public about one of Britain’s oldest industries.

    Whitby skipper Andrew Leadley, of Success WY 212, has spoken out against Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall and said: “For the real facts about the fishing industry check out the Real Fish Fight, not some jumped up cook who is only interested in sensationalism to boost his own bank balance”

    Seafish, the British authority on Seafood, have been openly sceptical about some of the claims made during Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall’s programme and is urging caution to campaigners, asking them to fully inform themselves of the facts before “jumping on the latest celebrity led bandwagon”.

    Peter Green, skipper of Peterhead trawler Celestial Dawn BF 109, joined in the Whitby Gazette debate and said: “[Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall] is nothing more than a fame-seeking self-proclaimed expert whose knowledge of our industry and how it works add up to about zero.” He added that the Gazette and it’s readership, surrounded by deep maritime history, should get behind the industry and “show him for what he really is, an attention-seeking prat.”

    However, dissent against the latest campaign is not unanimous and Graham Ridley posted: “It surely makes more sense than the way things have been run recently. If we raped the earth like we do the seabeds, we’d have nothing left. I’m totally behind the fish fight.”

    You can join the debate on the Whitby Gazette’s Facebook page or by commenting below.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...aders.20296257

    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is hoodwinking TV viewers, say fishing leaders

    Alan Shields
    Friday 22 February 2013

    CELEBRITY chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall should be taken off TV because his campaign to save fish stocks is damaging Scotland's fishing industry, its leaders have warned.


    The presenter of Channel 4's Hugh's Fish Fight has demanded increased accountability in the industry, but the Scottish Fisherman's Federation (SFF) accused him of hoodwinking the public by missing out key facts.

    SFF chief executive Bertie Armstrong said: "It's an oversimplified message. It's like watching Downton Abbey and regarding it as a historical documentary.

    "We find it frustrating as the public are left with the impression that all fishing is bad.

    "The public is being hoodwinked by this colourful-looking, half-plausible, low-quality sensationalism."

    Mr Armstrong said that, without a move to safeguard future stocks, he and many others would be unemployed.

    He said: "Scotland is a big player in European fisheries and it needs to be sustainable. We are comfortably heading in the right direction.

    "We can't go into a downward spiral of overfishing, otherwise we are all out of a job."

    Scottish White Fish Producers' Association chief executive, Michael Park, said he did not want the programme to be cancelled if it was factual.

    He added: "But I don't want it to stay on the air if all it is going to do is portray inaccuracies and falsehoods. He ignores the facts and just goes for the sensationalist stuff.

    "We've come to understand this is not about trying to help the eco-system – it's about brand Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall."

    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall has fought to save the world's diminishing fish stocks since the start of 2011.

    Hugh's Fish Fight has resulted in the backing of 700,000 people, including Stephen Fry and Coldplay, through an internet petition calling for fishing in UK waters to be more sustainable.

    In addition to hoping to reduce North Sea fish discards, the movement calls for the introduction of 127 new marine conservation zones in the UK waters.

    However, fisherman claim to be abiding by current legislation and say they are pro-sustainability.

    In the latest series, the TV presenter dived underwater off the Isle of Man to see the effects of scallop dredging.

    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall said the practice was destroying the marine environment.

    But Mr Armstrong claims it is not as harmful as the programme made it out to be.

    He said: "It does not damage the seabed or carry away important things or leave it a barren waste.

    "It's giving something to the public that is colourful and plausible, then making a contrast that is horrible and dark."

    Mr Armstrong said the industry believed sustainable fishing is sensible and agreed with Fearnley-Whittingstall that areas of the seabed ought to be protected.

    A Channel 4 spokesman said it stood by its decision to broadcast thethe show, adding: "The programme is fair, accurate and was meticulously researched."

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.seafish.org/about-seafish...tific-evidence

    Seafish: The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence.

    21 February 2013

    Seafish has today published a ten point response to the Fish Fight Charter, which it describes as "simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas."

    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight campaign, which is urging people to march on Parliament and demand the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK coastal waters is, in Seafish's view, in danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements, unless it stops its vilification of the UK fishing industry Paul Williams, CEO of Seafish, said:

    "The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas. The inconvenient truth to campaigns such as Fish Fight is that fishermen's knowledge has shown how the boundaries of a number of proposed MPAs, and the location of features within them, are wrong. So you need fishermen on board in order to achieve the environmental, social and economic improvements that everyone is striving for, and the science must be in place before you designate MPAs. Going down the 'evidence-lite' route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry - a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas.

    "Hugh's Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government's Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas - what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit - simply wasn't adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered."

    Seafish's response tackles many of the assumptions made in the Fish Fight Charter and also questions why the celebrity chef is raising these issues now when industry and environmental groups have been working with Government for years to improve the vibrancy and productivity of the marine environment.

    Some of the key points raised hinge on the assumption that all mobile gear destroys the sea-floor. The fact is that the right mobile gear used in the right place and at the appropriate intensity does not destroy the seafloor.

    There is also the false assumption that all MPAs enhance fishing communities. Fundamentally, mobile gear fleets are important to many economically fragile coastal fishing communities.

    Another false assumption that the campaign operates on is that MPAs bring unalloyed environmental benefit. On the contrary, displacing fishing activity from MPAs could negate the ecological benefits afforded by an MPA network.

    There are some areas where Seafish does agree with the Charter such as the importance of establishing MPAs in order to protect the environment and enable sustainability. This is already being done in many areas and has created vibrant and productive seas around the UK. The difference of opinion is how this is achieved and also in how the campaign has chosen to illustrate the need for action.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Fish...#axzz2LjYXwzEF

    Fishing industry hits out at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall

    Celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, once seen as the champion of Westcountry fisherman, has sparked anger and frustration in the region's ports with his latest televised "Fish Fight" campaign.

    The Westcountry-based restaurant owner and campaigner's TV series is "simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence", industry body Seafish claimed yesterday, in a furious broadside aimed at the show.

    The latest round of the celebrity chef's mission for a more sustainable fishing industry, which includes demands for the introduction of 127 marine conservation zones around the coast, aired on Channel 4 this week.

    But the programme has prompted a furious reaction from the industry which claimed the campaign was "misleading" and risked "alienating" fishermen who were vital to conservation efforts.

    Seafish responded to the programme by publishing its own ten-point response to the so-called "Fish Fight Charter". Paul Williams, chief executive of Seafish, said the campaign had "vilified" the fishing industry and was "in danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements".

    "The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas," he said. "The inconvenient truth to campaigns such as Fish Fight is that fishermen's knowledge has shown how the boundaries of a number of proposed marine protected areas, and the location of features within them, are wrong.

    "So you need fishermen on board in order to achieve the environmental, social and economic improvements that everyone is striving for, and the science must be in place before you designate marine protected areas.

    "Going down the 'evidence-lite' route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry – a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas."

    The Fish Fight campaign, which also wants to see an end to discards (unwanted dead fish being dumped back into the sea) has gained the backing of hundreds of thousands of people via an internet petition.

    Paul Trebilcock, chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, said Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall, had "undoubtedly" done the industry some good by raising awareness of issues with the general public.

    But he said yesterday: "There is a lot of anger and frustration. It is very inaccurate at times. He is using his celebrity chef status to mislead the public in terms of what the fishing industry is doing.

    "The industry has done so much good in terms of sustainability and protecting the marine environment and that is either being ignored or they are not prepared to put a balanced view across because it doesn't make good television.

    "However well intentioned these people are, the effects in the real world for the fishing industry could be catastrophic. They need to be careful of the unintended consequences."

    In December, the Government angered environmentalists by announcing that just 31 of 127 proposed marines conservation zones would be given increased protection. The first wave in the South West includes Padstow Bay, the Tamar Estuary and Torbay.

    A march on Parliament is being staged on Monday as part of the Fish Fight campaign, demanding the full list be implemented.

    Channel 4 said Thursday's programme "does not criticise the UK's fishing industry" and had been "fair, accurate and meticulously researched".

    A Fish Fight campaign spokesman added: "More marine protected areas would allow habitat to recover, which ultimately would benefit the fishing industry."

    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall, whose River Cottage food business is based at Axminster in East Devon, also responded to some of the criticisms in his blog on the Fish Fight website.

    He added: "Behind the scenes we have spoken at length to fishermen from all different sectors of the industry, and we have tried to include their views accurately and fairly in the programmes.

    "I understand that not all fishermen are the same, and not all fishing methods damage the marine environment. I think we have been very clear."

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/1-2m-ar...#axzz2LinF48Qu

    £1.2m artificial reef plan is delayed as TV's Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall pulls out

    A £1.2 million artificial reef plan will have to be scaled down because of funding issues.

    The project, which would have seen up to 1,000 giant concrete balls dropped on the Torbay sea bed in a bid to attract more marine life to the area and boost eco-tourism, has lost its backer, TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

    Rick Parker, skipper of the Jennifer Ann charter dive boat, who is spearheading the project, insisted the scheme was still on course but might take longer to achieve or be scaled down.

    Mr Parker claimed he originally had the backing of Axminster-based TV celebrity Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall and his TV production company KEO Films, but the project could not receive the green light in time for filming to start in November.

    He said: "The Fish Fight programme was going out in January, but we were not going to be ready by then. They still want to do a documentary on it when it is up and running. They won't be funding it anymore though."

    Mr Parker said he was still keen to press ahead.

    He said: "I am in the process of applying for charity status so we can tap into various funding streams and go ahead with the project.

    "I had a round table meeting with the various licensing authorities like Natural England, the Marine Management Organisation, and Torbay Council to see what was required of me in terms of a survey of the seabed.

    "We're still keen to go ahead with this educational and research scheme. It will just have to be done a bit at a time and on a smaller scale, but it's the end result which counts. I know it can work."

    Mr Parker first showed his idea for an artificial reef for Tor Bay at a harbour committee meeting last September.

    The four areas with potential for an artificial reef in the Bay are Hope's Nose, Anstey's Cove, Long Quarry Point, Babbacombe Bay and Oddicombe beach.

    Mr Parker said: "Everyone we talked to was very supportive, the Crown Estate, the MMO. We just need now to get charity status and find some funds." The keen diver is hoping to have his new Reef Haven declared a charity within the next three months so he can apply for funding as soon as possible.

    If all goes well, he now hopes to be able to put down the first concrete ball on the sea bed in the autumn.

    Kevin Mowat, director of marine services and Tor Bay harbourmaster, said the harbour committee had been supportive of the project in general terms, but asked Mr Parker to go away and speak to the various stakeholders and prepare a business plan.

    He said: "There were talks of surveying the seabed to see if the project is feasible. Rick did speak to all the stakeholders to see if he was likely to get consent from a statutory point of view.

    "The Crown Estate and MMO were quite supportive of his idea. From Torbay Council's point of view the principle has been established and accepted."

    A spokesman's for Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's TV company, KEO Films, said: "It is correct to say we are not involved in the project.

    "This was one of a number of projects we were looking at around the country for possible inclusion in the Fish Fight series."

    There you have it guys when they couldn't profit from the reef for the "Fish Fight"(SHYTE) they pulled all their funding, its all about the money always has been and always will be with HFW and his cronies , Davie

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Fish-...#axzz2LvDw47bC


    Fish Fight march: "Irresponsible and opportunistic", says Seafish chief executive
    Trusted article source icon
    Monday, February 25, 2013
    Profile image for This is Grimsby

    This is Grimsby
    Follow

    THE Grimsby-based chief executive of Seafish, has urged those who taking part in Hugh’s Fish Fight orchestrated march on Westminster today, to recognise facts before jumping on the bandwagon.

    Chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, fresh from his discard success in Brussels, is now demanding the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters as quickly as possible. It has been described as “irresponsible and opportunistic” by the industry body.

    In Seafish’s view, calling for such measures, without due consideration of robust scientific evidence and detailed decision-making, presents a very real danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements.

    Dr Paul Williams said: “When livelihoods and communities are at risk of damage we must only deal in fact. It is vital that the discussions around such complex issues continue to be held by the people who have the knowledge and expertise to make considered informed decisions. To that end, the fishing industry has already been working closely with scientists and policy-makers for several years on the successful implementation of MPAs.

    “This is not a ‘new’ campaign in the UK. We are already well on the way to designating more MPAs. I would urge all those on the march to ensure that they are well-informed on what they are campaigning for and give due recognition to the extensive work that has already been completed.”

    In Grimsby alone, more than 10,000 people are directly employed in the fish processing industry, and while much of the raw material is imported from Iceland and Norway, Britain’s catch is part of that make-up. The town is home to several big players, including Young’s Seafood, Coldwater, Seachill and Five Star Fish.

    Dr Williams, based at Humber Seafood Institute, the beacon of the town’s award-winning cluster, added: “Hugh’s Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government’s Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas – what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit – simply wasn’t adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered.”

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...r-UK-seas.html

    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall demands protection for UK seas
    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has accused the Government of dragging their heels on promises to protect UK seas despite spending millions of taxpayers’ money on so-called marine ‘national parks’.

    As part of the Marine Act the Government is committed to setting up a network of “marine conservation zones” (MCZs) or Marine Protected Areas around the coast of Britain.

    More than £8 million has been spent on identifying the 127 areas where dolphins, seahorses and other rare species most need protection.

    But despite promising to take the legislation forward the Department for the Environment (Defra) has so far only managed to set out plans to create 31 sites by te end of this year, a relatiely small area around the size of Cornwall, while the majority of MCZs have no timetable.

    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall said ministers are “dragging their heels” because they argue it is too expensive to get all the scientific evidence needed to designate the extra MCZs.

    But conservationists say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest all 127 zones need protecting urgently from practices such as dredging.



    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall said millions of pounds have been spent already and it will cost more to let vulnerable areas of the coast, many of which contain hatcheries for commercial species, to continue to decline.

    He pointed out that it is a tiny area of UK waters – less than 5 per cent – that he is asking to be protected and it will be much cheaper to gather evidence on management once MCZs are created.

    “They [ministers] are dragging their heels,” he said. “They do not think they can afford the science they want to do. We feel that a more precautionary approach is needed.

    “If you know a site is fragile and is being damaged by certain fishing methods and you have as strong hunch that recovery of it will have benefits for the wider fishery and environment then it is worth getting on with it."

    Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, Marine Conservation Society Biodiversity Officer, said English seas have suffered decades of damage by human activities such as bottom trawling and dredging.

    “We need to protect our seas now. Over a million people took part in the process that resulted in the list of 127 recommended MCZs. It cost the British tax payer in excess of £8million. Thirty one is a start, but shows a lack of ambition for the responsible management of our seas. Government must make a firm commitment to designate these now, and the rest of the 127 zones in 2014.”

    Mr Fearnley Whittingstall has spent the last two years working to improve the state of the oceans through his campaign Fish Fight.

    He managed to get Europe to agree to try and ban discards, the practice where dead fish are thrown overboard, and persuade consumers to try new types of fish like coley and mackerel.

    Now he is trying to get the public involved in the fight to protect all 127 MCZs through the Save Our Seas programmes on Channel 4.

    On Monday (25 February) he is leading a march on Parliament calling on the Government to ensure protection for UK seas and set out a time line for designating all 127 MCZs, as well as details on how the first 31 zones designated this year will be managed and protected.

    Divers from conservation charities dressed in full scuba gear will race up the Thames in inflatable boats and “men in rubber” will join the march alongside members of the public, giant ‘sea creatures’ and hundreds of placards to “save our seas”.

    Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall said is it is a “once in a generation” opportunity to save the oceans before it is too late.

    He pointed out that in Lyme Bay in Dorset and the Isle of Man, where there are already MCZs, fishermen are benefitting from healthier stocks around the protected areas as well as more opportunities for tourism and increased biodiversity.

    MCZs are not only important in Britain but around the world.

    Two thirds of the planet’s fish stocks are over-exploited and if Britain can prove that protecting the seas can work for both biodiversity and sustaining fish stocks it will lead the world.

    “We could be having more fish around the UK and around the world making a greater profit if we managed our seas more sustainably," said Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall. "That has to be worth focusing on – especially if you like fish.”

    Defra said 31 MCZs will be designated by the end of this year but were unable to give a definitive timetable for the rest.

    “This is not about numbers or about drawing lines on a map. It is about setting out what we are protecting and where, and that these areas are properly managed to protect the marine environment," said a spokesman.

    “We carefully considered all of the evidence and these 31 sites are the ones that are suitable to be designated later this year. This is not the sum of our ambition and we will be taking forward more sites in the next phase.”

    Paul Williams, the Chief Executive of Seafish, that represents the fishing industry, insisted evidence must be in place before MCZs are in created, otherwise it risks displacing damaging fishing elsewhere.

    “Going down the ‘evidence-lite’ route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry – a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas,” he said.

    Paul Trebilcock, of The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), pointed out limiting fishing around the coast will have impacts on communities.

    “Environmentalists may not be particularly concerned about fishermen’s livelihoods or the effect of poorly sited MCZs on local fishing communities - most of the initial sites will be close inshore - but they should be concerned about the ecological consequence of bad decisions,” he said.

    “So far the environmental community has refused to address the fact that displaced fishing activity is a critical issue that must be managed very carefully. We are not opposed to marine conservation zones and see their value in protecting vulnerable marine habitats. But we are absolutely adamant that naïve enthusiasm should not railroad the government into premature and hasty decisions.”

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.fishnewseu.com/index.php?...4:uk&Itemid=55

    Marchers may be mislead

    Monday, 25 February 2013 11:18

    SEAFISH has expressed its concern over today’s March on Westminster, which has been organised by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in a bid to ensure the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters.

    In Seafish’s view, calling for such measures, without due consideration of robust scientific evidence and detailed decision-making, presents a very real danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements.

    Dr Paul Williams, Chief Executive of Seafish, said: “When livelihoods and communities are at risk of damage we must only deal in fact. It is vital that the discussions around such complex issues continue to be held by the people who have the knowledge and expertise to make considered informed decisions. To that end, the fishing industry has already been working closely with scientists and policy-makers for several years on the successful implementation of MPAs.

    “This is not a new campaign In the UK. We are already well on the way to designating more MPAs. I would urge all those taking part in the march today to ensure that they are well-informed on what they are campaigning for and give due recognition to the extensive work that has already been completed.

    “Hugh’s Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government’s Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas – what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit – simply wasn't adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered.”

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fraserburgh , Scotland
    Posts
    44,628

    Default

    http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co....he-fish-fight/

    DRAWING A LINE IN THE ‘FISH FIGHT’



    Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, which is urging people to march on Parliament and demand the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK coastal waters is, in Seafish’s view, in danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements, unless it stops its vilification of the UK fishing industry.

    Paul Williams, CEO of Seafish, said: “The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas. The inconvenient truth to campaigns such as Fish Fight is that fishermen’s knowledge has shown how the boundaries of a number of proposed MPAs, and the location of features within them, are wrong. So you need fishermen on board in order to achieve the environmental, social and economic improvements that everyone is striving for, and the science must be in place before you designate MPAs. Going down the ‘evidence-lite’ route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry – a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas.

    “Hugh’s Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government’s Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas – what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit – simply wasn’t adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered.”

    Seafish’s response tackles many of the assumptions made in the Fish Fight Charter and also questions why the celebrity chef is raising these issues now when industry and environmental groups have been working with Government for years to improve the vibrancy and productivity of the marine environment. Some of the key points raised hinge on the assumption that all mobile gear destroys the sea-floor. The fact is that the right mobile gear used in the right place and at the appropriate intensity does not destroy the seafloor.

    There is also the false assumption that all MPAs enhance fishing communities. Fundamentally, mobile gear fleets are important to many economically fragile coastal fishing communities. Another false assumption that the campaign operates on is that MPAs bring unalloyed environmental benefit. On the contrary, displacing fishing activity from MPAs could negate the ecological benefits afforded by an MPA network.

    There are some areas where Seafish does agree with the Charter such as the importance of establishing MPAs in order to protect the environment and enable sustainability. This is already being done in many areas and has created vibrant and productive seas around the UK. The difference of opinion is how this is achieved and also in how the campaign has chosen to illustrate the need for action.

    If you enjoyed this well-informed and written piece by Laurence, why not bookmark his regular blog Through the Gaps ? Laurence is out pretty much every day gathering the latest fishing news and pictures from Newlyn and beyond and you can take part in an ongoing Twitter conversation about local fishing through his popular site whether you’re at home or at sea!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Well Halfwhittingstall hasn't had any TV news coverage of his march to Westminster

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •