Read on Twitter
I have a story to tell you about fish. No, wait, come back!
20+ years ago I was an exec in the web agency used by WWF (pandas, not wrestlers). And as such I closely involved in their GLOBAL campaign to Stop Overfishing.
Remember the word GLOBAL.
Here& #39;s what I learned
20+ years ago I was an exec in the web agency used by WWF (pandas, not wrestlers). And as such I closely involved in their GLOBAL campaign to Stop Overfishing.
Remember the word GLOBAL.
Here& #39;s what I learned
In the 90s, fishing worldwide was in crisis. Decades of massive industrial fishing had damgerously depleted stocks.
Standard practice was to use weighted nets big enough to hold 6 Jumbo Jets, that dragged along the sea bed and caught absolutely everything.
Standard practice was to use weighted nets big enough to hold 6 Jumbo Jets, that dragged along the sea bed and caught absolutely everything.
The nets destroyed the hatcheries, and killed young fish before they got to breeding age.
If they can& #39;t reproduce, the species dies.
In parts of the North Sea this was happening 6x a year, and fish stocks fell at eye-watering speed.
This was replicated all over the world.
If they can& #39;t reproduce, the species dies.
In parts of the North Sea this was happening 6x a year, and fish stocks fell at eye-watering speed.
This was replicated all over the world.
North Sea cos was declared "economically extinct" - so few left, it made no sense to fish them.
But we kept on fishing them anyway. Most govs had schemes or grants to support the industry, or bought rights to new places to fish into oblivion.
Something had to change.
But we kept on fishing them anyway. Most govs had schemes or grants to support the industry, or bought rights to new places to fish into oblivion.
Something had to change.
WWF presented govs with options
1. Keep going as you are and have no fish. No fish means no fishing industry.
2. Limit fishing and save some of your industry
GLOBALLY, people chose option 2
1. Keep going as you are and have no fish. No fish means no fishing industry.
2. Limit fishing and save some of your industry
GLOBALLY, people chose option 2
The UK was a member of the EU, so signed as the EU. But we would have signed anyway. I personally sat in rooms with ministers who said so.
Signing as the EU was just cheaper, cos we only had 1/28th of the admin to pay for. But we had to sign.
That& #39;s point 1. Here& #39;s point 2
Signing as the EU was just cheaper, cos we only had 1/28th of the admin to pay for. But we had to sign.
That& #39;s point 1. Here& #39;s point 2
We don& #39;t have rights to our fishing grounds because we privitised them at a knockdown price.
They were snapped up by a few wealthy families, who sold them on.
We did this. Not the EU. Us.
We took an national asset, sold it cheap to our mates, who flipped them for a quick buck.
They were snapped up by a few wealthy families, who sold them on.
We did this. Not the EU. Us.
We took an national asset, sold it cheap to our mates, who flipped them for a quick buck.
So leaving the EU will not - cannot - change fishing.
You can& #39;t catch a fish that doesn& #39;t exist; and you can& #39;t stop people from accessing fishing grounds you just sold to them.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying to you.
You can& #39;t catch a fish that doesn& #39;t exist; and you can& #39;t stop people from accessing fishing grounds you just sold to them.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying to you.
