Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: The Local 9.Aug.2009, 09:41 AM

In the face of protest from the Swedish government, Greenpeace has announced its continued intention to drop boulders into two cod-fishing areas of the Kattegat sound to prevent bottom trawling in the waters separating the Swedish and Danish mainlands.

On Saturday, the global environmental group said it will go ahead with plans to sink nearly 180 boulders weighing between one to three tonnes.

"The actions foreseen by Greenpeace rest on confrontation and unilateralism, which risks threatening necessary cooperation," the Swedish agriculture and fisheries minister Eskil Erlandsson wrote in Dagens Nyheter newspaper.

225 words remaining. Click to read the http://www.thelocal.se/21190/.

Posted by: Marley420 10.Aug.2009, 07:04 AM

Yeah! One up for Greenpeace.

Posted by: Greg in Canada 10.Aug.2009, 08:09 PM

Three hippie activists in Vancouver started Greenpeace in 1971. Still going strong after all these years. I'm sure they never imagined that they'd grow as big as they did.

Posted by: ppk 11.Aug.2009, 01:23 AM

We must ban trawling everywere.
Industrial fishing today looks like trying to feed world population by hunting.

Posted by: Sensiblenick 11.Aug.2009, 07:47 AM

Its rare that I agree with Greenpeace's tactics - often ill-thought out and sometimes more damaging than helpful - but this particular activity is one that I and probably many other Greenpeace-sceptics would be happy to help fund!! :D
If only this could be done in more areas :o)

Posted by: The Local 11.Aug.2009, 09:28 AM

Greenpeace launches cod-fishing protest

Activists for environmental group Greenpeace have started dropping boulders into EU-protected cod fishing grounds off Sweden to impede bottom-trawling, a spokesperson confirmed on Monday.

The group plans to sink 180 boulders into the sea in the Kattegat sound between Sweden and Denmark in response to allegations that trawl nets used by fishermen cause serious damage to marine wildlife.

Greenpeace spokesperson Staffan Danielsson told AFP that the operation, which
began at 11:30am on Monday, "would have no negative impact on the environment" and said the group had carried out a risk assessment that had been approved by independent researchers.

89 words remaining. Click to read the http://www.thelocal.se/21236/.

Posted by: BCR 11.Aug.2009, 05:28 PM

glad that someone is taking some action.

Posted by: Nemesis 11.Aug.2009, 08:42 PM

Actually the blocks would need to be about five tons or more, to guarentee that the net will not lift them. I have seen stones on trawlers that have weighed 3 tons, which were dragged up by the net, without major damage to the net and in some cases no dmage at all. A lot of my family used to work in the fishing industry in Ireland years ago.
A better idea would be if Greenpeace welded 3 steel girders at there middle points together at 90 degree angles and encase the entire thing in concrete to about 6 to 8 tons. That would tear through a net and be too heavy for the net or the nets bottom rope to lift. It would also act as a small reef, which would help encourage biodiversity.
Doing that in the spawning grounds would be a good idea, as it would assist spawning, keep nets out of the area and allow areas to form in the sea that have high numbers of spawning fish.

Posted by: DStrope 11.Aug.2009, 10:23 PM

good for them!!!!!

Posted by: reason 11.Aug.2009, 10:51 PM

Greenpeace pulls some pretty stupid stunts sometimes, but this time they have my full support. This is something that the government should be doing, or at least sponsoring. But since that doesn't seem likely, I guess a small personal contribution to Greenpeace is in order.

Posted by: Weekend_warrior 12.Aug.2009, 02:42 AM

While I agree with what Greenpeace is doing for the fish...all this leads to is escalation.
brass knuckles -- knife -- gun -- machine gun --bazooka --bomb
drop cement blocks, they'll figure out another way or just simply strengthen their nets and pass on the cost to the consumer.

Posted by: Sensiblenick 12.Aug.2009, 08:02 AM

... and the consumer will say "Sod this, Cod's too expensive" and the demand will drop.
... maybe.

Saving the planet's Soooo expensive *sniff* I reckon we should give up.

Posted by: Nuname 12.Aug.2009, 08:14 AM

and can we all shame vegetarians who eat fish into quitting by taking them to task about the raping of the oceans being OK yet the rearing and killing of animals for meat isn't. Bloody hypocrites.

Posted by: Jamtjim 12.Aug.2009, 08:29 AM

The difference is that most meat that we eat is farmed and thus our consuption of meat is not directly leading to a species extinction. The "wild" meat (for example) that we consume is usually quite well controlled so that these animals are not threatened either. In addition, the farming of animals does not in general lead to widespread collateral damage to the surrounding environmet (deforestation in Brazil to make way for beef farming aside).

The problem with trawling Nuname is that is causes massive damage to the seabed in the hunt for a species which is already under a great deal of threat. In the process the other species hauled in (some of which may also be under threat) are often killed as well.

Its not about vegetarians (although the idea of claiming to be a vegetarian whilst still eating fish is a strange one to me), it's about the fact that indiscriminate trawling for an already threatened species is one of the worst environmental crimes that we currently commit. As such I fully support Greempeace on theis one!

Posted by: Nuname 12.Aug.2009, 08:36 AM

That was my point.

Posted by: Holecutter > The Howl From He 12.Aug.2009, 09:07 AM

Part of my charitable exercises involves working with the EU commission fisheries for the Baltic and the North Sea, and since 1997, we have within working groups made up of NGO's, special interest groups like WWF, universities and member States, to ascertain the extent of the continual declines in the Baltic, of salmon, sea trout and cod stocks.

There is now clear evidence from the EU SAP, that fish stocks in the Baltic are no longer a sustainable resource. From our last meeting in Brussels in April, one of the commissioners stated that there were three areas of concern, a continual decline in the Baltic fish stocks due to over fishing, a real threat of extinction and lastly, a resource that is in real danger due to the in-activity of the member state(s) governments.

Although, much of what Greenpeace has done in the past has been a hit-and-miss but good intention activity. this time around they have got it right.