Get ready for the Big Fish Fight

Posted by jamie - 7 January 2011 at 11:24am - Comments

Hugh and Jamie during filming of the Fish Fight series

Hugh and Jamie during filming of Fish Fight outside Westminster

We're only a few days in to 2011, but already this year is shaping up to be a big one in our campaign to end the plunder of the oceans.

With fish stocks plummeting and other marine life suffering thanks to poor fishing methods, we need all the help we can get. So I'm really looking forward to the Big Fish Fight starting next week on Channel 4, which will see TV chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall investigating the devastating effects of the fishing industry on marine life and the oceans themselves.

Hugh's series - Hugh's Fish Fight – will be particularly fascinating, starting Tuesday 11 January at 9pm. I wouldn't often advocate sitting in front of the TV as a course of positive action, but this should be worth it. Set yourself a reminder by joining the Facebook event page.

He's been delving into various murky aspects of how fish gets to our supermarkets including: the huge numbers of sharks, rays and other fish being caught and killed as bycatch in tuna nets; the vast quantities of perfectly edible fish discarded thanks to poor European fishing policies; and the devastating effects of fish farming or aquaculture on the environment.

Many of these issues cut right across our campaign work, to the extent that our investigators have been working closely with Hugh's production team, travelling to Ghana to uncover the secrets of the tinned tuna industry – watch out for them in episode two on Wednesday at 9pm.

We'll also be asking for your help very soon to challenge the worst practices in the tinned tuna industry once again, as we launch our new tinned tuna league table. You've already convinced many supermarkets to improve their policies when it comes to tinned tuna and we want to make sure the other big players do too.

In the meantime, don't miss Hugh's Fish Fight starting on Channel 4 next Tuesday at 9pm.

Article tagged as: aquaculture, big fish fight, bycatch, channel 4, discards, hugh fearnley-whittingstall, oceans, tinned tuna

Comments Commenting is now closed

This environmental destruction has been going on for years. It amazes me how the Green Party has not been more vocal on this subject. Perhaps it's because of all the cushy jobs they now have, nodding their heads up and down in support for a vile, wicked, corrupt institution like the EU?

By JohnnyW - 8 January 2011 at 6:52am

Well said man

By James A - 9 January 2011 at 2:17pm

Sounds like a great campaign. What about the fishermen and fishing organisations-what are they saying about it all?

By skyangel - 9 January 2011 at 8:56pm

Woo! Death to tuna! I love it on my sandwiches!

By fishmongerunited - 10 January 2011 at 3:04pm

Was there a need really? They are dying out. It's good that this big fish fight is coming on it gives the tuna population and other fish to breed again!

We need to give them a chance.

By JoshW - 10 January 2011 at 3:08pm

I watched the program hugh fish fight and was appalled at the fish they had to through back into the sea and dead ones at that it broke my heart when will this goverment fight for our fishermen I know I will now I never realized how bad it was better still bring back the 12 miles of water and get rid of the EU they are nothing but a joke the peaple that make these rules should be taken out to sea and made to watch what they have done oh I am so angry EU you are a waste of space.

By Mrs Linda Clark - 11 January 2011 at 11:10pm

Let's hope the Green Party start creating a stir about this. They've certainly known about it for long enough. Now is the time they should start standing by the rest of us, and oppose the EU and it's wasteful, bureaucratic and corrupt ways.

By JohnnyW - 11 January 2011 at 11:39pm

As a long time Greenpeace supporter I'm saddened Greenpeace don't see the implications of this 'fish fight'.

It's not fish that kill themseleves in fishermen's nets, they are caught and caught deliberately. I'm quite sure fishermen see the publicity value in all this...

Left to their own devices fishermen will fish the seas empty - that is what they do.

Yes it makes no sense to discared fish but to stop that the sensible thing to do is to stop such fish being caught. Surely Greenpeace noticed how small most of the discards were? Simplistically side with fishermen and you're buying into the nonsense about there being lots of fish out there. Letting them fish everything but limiting the time they can do that will just make the scrable to haul everything out more frantic.

But, part of me think 'to hell with them let them loose and then they might see sense'. No probably not - think blue finned tune...

By Peter from England - 12 January 2011 at 12:11am

AS the Xwife of a fisherman I can say certainly that fishermen are greedy but also that the costs of running their boats fuel etc are enormous.They will go on fishing for the fish they CAN land and will therefore have increased discard of the fish they CANT land. The answer is to limit their days at sea, let them land all their fish legally that will save stocks save fuel and enable the fishermen to take part time work on non sea days.Therefore say a boat fishes 4 days a week and lands all his cod then 3 days of cod per week usually dumped will be saved per boat plus a miriad of other species, dead fish cannot spawn and reproduce so discards are evil and devastate our oceans.Particulaly upsetting is to see large cod which have lived for many years being fished then thrown away when a few hours earlier they were happily swimming around. IF ALL THE DISCARDED FISH WERE WASHED UP ON A BEACH SOMEWHERE IT WOULD BE SEEN AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER AND GOVERMENTS AND MINISTERS WOULD BE DOING SOEMTHING ABOUT SAVING THEM,.

By grandmother - 12 January 2011 at 11:58am

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY FOR 50 YEARS AND SEEN EVERYTHING FROM TED HEATH SELLING THE INDUSTRY DOWN THE RIVER TO GET INTO EUROPE TO ALL SORTS OF BARMY SCHEMES TO REGULATE CATCHES THE ONLY WAY TO CONSERVE FISH IS BIGGER MESH SIZES ON THE NETS OR AS MY FATHER SAID TO ME HAVE ANOTHER WORLD WAR AS THE NORTH SEA WAS MINED AND CLOSED AND WHEN OPENED AGAIN PLAICE WERE COMING OUT AS BIG AS DUSTBIN LIDS. WE WILL NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHILE WE ARE UNDER EUROPEAN RULE THE FRENCH AND SPANISH CHEAT THE DUTCH DRAG UP THE SEA BED CATCHING SMALL IMATURE FISH. IT IS ALSO A DISGRACE THAT OUR MINISTER OF FISH CAN NOT TELL ONE FISH FROM ANOTHER HE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE JOB.

By BARRY FENLEY - 12 January 2011 at 12:26pm

The ministers involved need to go out to sea in a fishing boat and see for themselves.

Trawling has devastated the ecosystem of our seabeds and destroyed the food chain so even the sea birds are dying off.

We MUST respect our oceans and the creatures and live there.

By grandmother - 12 January 2011 at 12:41pm

I was absolutely enthralled by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's
programme last night, and so my my 11 year old daughter. Thank god we have people in this country that are passionate enough to get off their backsides and challenge the bureaucracy we have by our lazy-arse government! Hugh, like very few other great chefs is not on TV advertising his latest kitchen gadgets, his new trendy restaurant, but he is challenging his food passion to change our pathetic 'old fashioned rules. Being a chef myself, and also having a partner that is very involved in the industry I am firmly - and passionately - alongside Hugh and Greenpeace for bringing this subject to the public's attention and will do everything I can to support his cause. I vote that H-FW stands for MP for Fisheries - he would shake it up and bring some common sense to the table.

Well done to your all and I will watch the reaction from Tesco, M&S, Asda, Morrison, Sainsburys etc etc with interest!

Great to see that you have the well known expert in the industry (Mr John Burton) in your camp; now thats also a man who knows what he is talking about!

By Lindy Darmanin - 12 January 2011 at 1:45pm

@Peter: As you'll have seen on the show last night, the situation is complex and there are many factors - economic, political, industrial - which are driving the way fishing fleets operate. True, some people out there will exploit whatever they can get their hands on, but demonising fishermen isn't the answer. It's the policies and economics creating problems like discards and bycatch that we need to focus on.

@grandmother: Thanks for adding your perspective, and it's great to know there are those inside the fishing industry keen on reform too.

@Barry - Another world war may have other side-effects beyond restocking the oceans, so let's not dwell on that. But what you've describe is, in effect, a marine reserve, although I'd hope people would just agree to not fish there, rather than having to mine the North Sea.

@Lindy: glad you're enjoying the show and the campaigning!

By jamie - 12 January 2011 at 3:03pm

Areas callled NO TAKE ZONES also help in conservation and the more of these zones we have the better for all marine life.

Zones need to be carefully considered but the sooner some NO TAKE areas are agreed on the better.Spawning areas in particular need protecting.

By grandmother - 12 January 2011 at 3:34pm

Oh dear, I don't expect someone from Greenpeace, who I've supported for *decades* (and will continue to), to accuse me of 'deamonising' fishermen when I did no such thing. I criticised, but I know what a deamon is.

Again, it's fishermen who are catching these fish they then discard and it will be fishermen who'll continue to trawl the seas to, literally, death if they don't either stop fishing, leave certain areas unfished, trust the scientists, or use more intelligent menthod than one net catchs all. Not deamons, just wrong - imo.

I can't see how letting fisherman land everything they catch can help. It's the catching that's the problem - uncaught fsh can't be discarded. Fishermen have to listen to the scientists and you need to get beyond C4's stunts to something more substantive. That the C4 programme barely let the scientist have a say was telling and no one has mentioned how small the discarded fish were - cod used to be massive, the 'recovery' now is of young fish - they need protection not catching.

By Peter from England - 12 January 2011 at 7:13pm

Two millionaires telling us what to eat. Eff off. Also Mr. Fearnley- Whittingstall, why didn't you grill that smug scientist who told us with a straight face that cod was only just improving stock levels, when your programme provided evidence of masses of cod north of Scotland and off Hastings in the opposite end of the country, caught by the fishermen who work there every day, and who regarded the current quota system as bonkers, and throw back into the sea tons of cod? Oh, I forgot, we are humans and it is all our fault, irrespective of the evidence.

By Joe Public - 12 January 2011 at 10:39pm

@Joe Public

Millionaires because they are paid to impart knowledge on what are the best things to eat both in terms of the health benefits and their environmental impact; nobody if forcing you to follow their advice.

If you take a look at your next shopping basket (or if not you specifically, then the UKs collective shopping basket), I'll bet that nearly every food item in there is backed up by an advertising campaign of some sorts..."millionaires telling us what to eat. eff off."

By Connelly90 - 13 January 2011 at 1:24pm

Connelly90- They are not 'paid to impart knowledge on what are the best things to eat in terms of the health benefits and their environmental impact'. Unless they've kept it hidden, they are neither doctors or environmental scientists. They are mere chefs and should stick to the cooking.
Also there is a subtle difference between advertising and proselytising.

By Joe Public - 13 January 2011 at 2:29pm

@Joe Public

You're right, they are not doctors or environmental scientists; but Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall does do a lot of work for the environment while Jamie Oliver does a lot of work on nutrition so it would be safe to assume they are fairly knowledgeable on those subjects. They also seek out the advice of people such as proper doctors and environmental scientists and are paid to impart the knowledge they have gained throughtout their investigation into issues such as this, both with channel 4 and on their own.

I agree, there is a subtle difference between advertising and proselytising, but in this case they are rooted in the same common ground; "millionaires telling us what to eat"

By Connelly90 - 13 January 2011 at 2:46pm

@ Connelly90

Well said!

By Lindy Darmanin - 13 January 2011 at 2:52pm

Yeah....who needs qualifications when you have celebs giving us their third party 'fairly knowledgeable' schtick. From now on I won't venture out the door without reference to Russell Grant.
And if anybody really thinks there's a subtle difference between advertising and proselytising, then I'm tilting at windmills.

By Joe Public - 13 January 2011 at 6:07pm

@ Joe Public

You don't need a qualification in order for your opinion to be valid, or to engage in meaningful research into a subject you are passionate about; a good example of this is how a lot of really fanatical sports fans know their favourate team inside out and could recite each players stats with unbelievable accuracy, does that mean without a degree in Sports Science their opinions on that team are meaningless? of coarse not.

Like I said, these "celebs" have saught out the opinions of qualified professionals during this investigation, making the advice they give during the course of the campaign pretty valid if you ask me. You also need to stop and think why they are so famous in the first place, in the case of Hugh and Jamie they are probably equaly as famous for their work as environmentalists and nutritionists as they are for being plain old chefs.

By Connelly90 - 13 January 2011 at 6:20pm

@Joe Public

May I ask, respectfully, what your profession is?

By Lindy Darmanin - 13 January 2011 at 7:20pm

It is absolutely disgusting to see so many dead fish thrown back in to the ocean. What a waste of an excellent resource. What was the need for this rediculous law in the first place?! DISGUSTED!!

By RachelAtt - 13 January 2011 at 10:47pm

I am a strong believer in over fishing and stocks control through overfishing.But a hard hitting program like this makes you think what are these people in the EEC up to I was Thats just complete waste of natural resources.With red tape and ignorance
Well done elected people."Get a grip before its to late like the grand banks off Canada"

By Dean Lillie - 13 January 2011 at 11:25pm

I see the usual blog slag offs are developing. I watched Hughs programme and was reasonably impressed. I think sometimes it is best not to get scientists involved but to let common sense have a look in. I am told (and most of us are just told) that if we leave areas of sea fallow then stocks develop there. But I think the message is lets vary our eating habits and be more aware of what we are eating. Not a bad message but I suppose someone will want to argue. By the way hoew do you sign up to the fish fight because i cannot log on!!

By MARTYNUK - 13 January 2011 at 11:34pm

Greenpeace have been a leading campaign organisation against the wasteful discards programme of dumping perfectly good mixed fish species over board from fishing boats and larger ocean going trawlers who have caught there quota of whatever fish they have been fishing for, this is a directive from the EU which seemingly the British government adheres to the rule of law passed in Brussels and not in London, won wonders if the Spanish and french fishermen adhere to these rules , i think not as they seem to be a law unto themselves , the British fishing industry dumps around 1 million ton of discards per year what a waste how many hungry mouths would that feed , plus all these dumped fish will never breed thus further depleting the fish stocks, we must campaign against this wanton waste, support HUGHS FISH FIGHT and write to your MPs.

By Peter Merritt - 14 January 2011 at 1:00am

"plus all these dumped fish will never breed thus further depleting the fish stocks" Peter, they wont breed if they're landed either :)

It's the catching of these fish that's the problem. As we saw in the film most of the fish were on the small side they need to be left to grow and, yes, breed.

One thing for sure, left to their own devices fishermen (as a body) will over fish - fishing is highly efficent, the nets don't discriminate, or let out certain species, they catch everything that is there - that much is obvious from the bycatch and discards we're debating. It's the same story worldwide, the pressure to feed us all is on, as a species we're between a rock and a hard place - too many human being to feed - and people will fish too much.

I see two choice, let humanity rip, stop trying to address the worlds problems, bring the big crunch forward (and as a bonus thus shut up the vitriolic anti environmentalist movement) and lets see what happens (see if the fishermen are right about stocks - they're not btw), or try to address the world's problems, in this case by protecting (not over fishing) fish stocks and carrying on down the long road to sustainabilty, fairness and the rest. I've always supported the latter, but at times the former seems like a hard (probably devastating or worse) lesson we, as a species, might need.

By Peter from England - 14 January 2011 at 10:05am

On land we have areas protected because they are made in to national parks, the same needs to be done in the ocean.

Fishermen do NOT want bye catch and do not want to discard fish. They have families, mortgages and boats to pay for and that includes the high price of fuel. A boat uses a tremendous ammount of fuel on every fishing trip. If they could fish less days and land all their catch then the boats and the fuel will be paid for, at the moment they are having to fish long hours in order to catch enough 'legal' fish to pay the bills and that means MORE discards and millions of fish caught and killed for nothing. Norway can manage their fish stocks properly so why cant we.

Eating differrent species puts the price of that species up in the markets and the fishermen get more for their catch.At the moment cod and haddock etc get a high price but flatties and lesser white fish sell for a lot less and its difficult for the fishermen to pay their bills on that type of fish.

By grandmother - 14 January 2011 at 12:14pm

Lindy Darmanin-Yes you may respectfully ask. I'm not a teacher by the way, or I'd spend my time correcting Connelly90's solecisms.
As for Peter from England, I'm sure those fishermen risking their lives to earn a crust really appreciate the lecture you give them. Of course we should listen to you, sitting comfortably in front of your computer, rather than trust these idiots who are out there every day, chucking back into the oceans all that non-existent cod.

By Joe Public - 14 January 2011 at 12:32pm

@Joe Public

Grammatically incorrect as I may be, my argument is still valid.

They are doing good work here; being a "celeb" doesn't automatically mean your a useless, brain-dead nobody and you could do a lot worse than to listen to what they have to say.

By Connelly90 - 14 January 2011 at 12:41pm

We are lucky to have celebrities who are willing to stick their necks out and challenge issues, Millionaires or not they have a voice which people listen to and they can make a case for the environment.Sting was saving the rainforrest in the late 1970's/80's and Geldorf feeding Africa who else could have succeeded.

I am fairly sure that if I walked in to tesco with a can of tuna I'd be ignored.

WHat I can say is that hundreds of fishermen all over this country have been trying for years to make themselves heard and Goverment ministers have ignored them. They ARE listening to Hugh FW.

By grandmother - 14 January 2011 at 12:57pm

Thanks Joe, you're not connect to the interent then?

Anyway, no more a lecture than your posts - just my view. If you catch too many fish they will be none left, ignoring scientists is folly.

Btw, been a hill farmer for much of my life, out in all weather, earnt little, moved on...

By Peter from England - 14 January 2011 at 1:58pm

@Peter - sorry, maybe 'demonising' sounded harsher than I intended. i just meant not painting them as the bad guys indiscriminately as it's not just what happens at sea which is the issue.

There's been a lot of discussion here about the value of celebrities getting involved in campaigning. If they're passionate and knowledgeable enough to know what they're talking about, why not? Yes, the obsession with celebrities can obscure an issue, and the reluctance of the media to get involved without a famous face as a figurehead is annoying. But just because they're known for being on TV doesn't mean they can't have an opinion outside their sphere of work.

And for a scientific viewpoint, Callum Roberts wrote a succinct piece yesterday

By jamie - 14 January 2011 at 7:20pm

We recoil at the thought of fish dying in a net or on a boat and being thrown back to the sea, but we're happy for dead fish to be thrown down humans' throats? It's just as unnecessary.

Ecologically, the excessive consumption of fish seen in the UK is just as detrimental to our oceans as the methods by which they're caught.
What Hugh and his fish-feasting friends should be teaching the nation is how much better a plant-based diet is for our Earth.

By Vegan - 15 January 2011 at 1:01am

I'm sure it's well meant and not, as many say, sheer advertising and legacy-seeking but it is a very muddled mess of indignation. Do we want to continue discarding fish? No, of course not. What's the solution? Broaden our fish diet. Good idea. I like lots of fish and will broaden. But then it just gets horribly confused: Sign up to stop discards. Ok, but what is the alternative that I am signing up for.? .. very unclear. Websites show the plan was to change this next year anyway .. early victory? .. and then there's the tuna story. My goodness that's not thought-out. Solution to catching sharks, dolphins and turtles (how many? .. 2 or 2 million?), is to have only line-caught tuna. Great, but can we replace the huge factory-ships with this? Surely, either price of tuna rockets with such a solution or we have to pay a vast number of people peanuts to fish in not-exactly safe conditions ... neither a problem for HFW I suppose. .. and industrial-scale farmed salmon - hate the stuff and hate the conditions but is the fight against farming of salmon or is it for organic farming of salmon? The programme seems to suggest they are simple alternatives. Shift to organic salmon farming would drive the price up. Can everybody afford organic salmon (chicken, pork, etc)? It takes a lot of fish to feed salmon. Well, it takes a lot of grain and arable land to feed cattle. Are beef and dairy also a target? The usual Greenpeace (and this time fearnley-whotsit) muddle!

By michael rowed - 15 January 2011 at 6:03pm

People in this country eat a lot less fish than they used to, in the 70's a huge ammount of fish fingers were eaten plus plaice and dabs for the oldies and haddock and cod and poached lemon sole plus the chippie tea, i think that before that in wartime britain even more was consumed but that was before pepperoni pizza wasnt it and before 90% of out fishermen went bankrupt.

I remember Mallaig harbour in 1970 packed with herring smacks....all gone now, so that in itself has helped the fish stocks.

By grandmother - 15 January 2011 at 8:02pm

Eat plants............oh my aching sides (and stomach). What's happened to care in the community?

By Joe Public - 15 January 2011 at 10:26pm

Oh......... I'm so glad Sting saved the rain forests and Geldof sorted out Africa. And I'll certainly follow De Caprio's brilliant climate change theory. After all, I read in Take A Break he's a fully qualified celeb isn't he?

By Joe Public - 15 January 2011 at 10:31pm

The root problrm of not enough of anything is that there are too many people in the world. What is needed is a global breeding programme for humans to halt the increase and turn the world population into a manageable decline.

By martynuk - 16 January 2011 at 10:23am

To many people like sea fish, if you really have to eat fish then eat fish like trout, they are at the height of their breeding program right now so that is the best thing to do.

By H.J.Bolam - 16 January 2011 at 3:19pm

I'm sorry, I came on here expecting the odd bit of quixotic comment, for that is the green raison d'etre, but to read 'what is needed is a global breeding programme for humans to halt the increase and turn the world population into a manageable decline', takes the biscuit, in terms of misanthropy. As I said previously, where is care in the community when you need it most.

By Joe Public - 16 January 2011 at 9:38pm

@ Joe Public

OK, so would you rather keep filling the planet with people until the whole thing spirals out of control and nature takes over, providing us with handy tried-and-tested population control methods such as famine and drought?

By Connelly90 - 18 January 2011 at 11:44am

Whatever happens, I do not wish to live in a world with a 'global breeding programme'. I believe those wonderful, smiling chaps running China have been doing that for some time. Go and live there if you want that type of society.

By Joe Public - 18 January 2011 at 12:26pm

@Joe Public

And how is me moving to another country going to help the situation in any way? It would more than likely add to the problem as I am currently living in Scotland, a country with a relatively low overall population density and moving to one of the most overpopulated countries on the planet dosn't seem like a valid solution to me.

At least most of the people here are offering up solutions to the problems discussed rather than simply pointing out the problems then sticking thier fingers in thier ears to anybody offering a solution who they personally don't see as "qualified" enough to listen to.

By Connelly90 - 18 January 2011 at 12:33pm

I wasn't looking for a fight and i'm certainly not a misanthrope. I was just pointing out what the root cause of the problem is. Education would be good starting point in poorer parts of the world maybe?

By martynuk - 18 January 2011 at 12:33pm

@Joe Public

I find your comments really quite pathetic and sarcastic; I'm sure if you put as much energy finding the solution alongside other people that 'care' then you do in criticising everyone who has something valuable to say then I am sure people would take you more seriously.

By the way, as for your comments about sitting comfortably at my computer - writing this blog! Of course I am, where on earth are you sitting writing yours - on planet Mars!

Do you work in politics by any chance?!

By Lindy Darmanin - 18 January 2011 at 1:31pm

You've answered your own question Connelly90. Scotland, when I last checked, doesn't have a one child policy, and China did. They seemed keen on this 'breeding programme' to reduce numbers, having used this draconian method for over 25 years, with abortions, infanticide, forced adoptions, kidknapping and abandoned and neglected children, the unhappy by-products. If you support a 'breeding programme', that is why I suggested moving there. Population control is certainly an issue in developing nations, as in the west population by birth is in decline, although migration, to Europe from poorer nations especially, affects numbers.
Martynuk- Agree totally.

By Joe Public - 18 January 2011 at 1:35pm

Lindy-I'm sorry you feel that way. Don't worry though, I do fret about issues affecting us all. I even care. However I do dislike nonsensical arguments or crass intervention from celebs unqualified to opine on such matters.
I don't think I referred to you sitting at your computer. Somebody else was impugning fishermen by suggesting that left to their own devices they would overfish, which is arrant nonsense. Fishermen understand the sea more than anyone, and risk their lives for their living. Why would they kill their business for short-term gain? I suggested, albeit sarcastically, that the guy writing that can do so from the comfort of his computer.
Why do you wish to know what I do, which isn't politics or anything related by the way?

By Joe Public - 18 January 2011 at 1:53pm