Category Archives: Documents

Documentary pages

800 Sign Trawler Safety Petition

Unknown source, thought to be Fleetwood Weekly News

Article provided by Les Howard

Fleetwood trawler wives are doing their part in the moves for greater safety at sea and one petition from the town has already been handed in at the Board of Trade. Carrying 550 signatures, it was organised by Mrs. Sheila Oldman of Southfleet Avenue, whose two sons go to sea in trawlers and whose husband Bill was in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service.

The petition asked for an inspection of every trawler leaving for the fishing grounds to make sure lifesaving and firefighting equipment was fully operational.

“Although it nearly always is, I have heard of cases where it wasn’t, and this isn’t good enough where men’s lives are concerned,” said 43 year old Mrs. Oldman, whose sons Michael, ages 22 of Langwood, Fleetwood, and 21 year old David, who lives at home, are both deckhands.

The signatures, which were collected in a week by Mrs. Oldman and a few helpers, are all from fishermen’s womenfolk.

Commented Mrs. Oldman, “Insurance pays for the ships which are lost but you can’t put a value on men’s lives – no amount of money can pay for them.”

Meanwhile, Mrs Jessie Roberts of Hesketh Place, Fleetwood , is well on the way to her target of 1,000 signatures which she will send to Mrs. Lillian Bilocca of Hull, in support of “Big Lil’s” bid for a trawlermen’s safety charter.

“I’ve got more than 800 now and I think that I’ll get well over 1,000,” said Mrs.Roberts who has been helped by two of her eight children, 13 year old Billy and 12 year old Shirley.

Mrs. Roberts, whose husband George is a deckhand, said that most of the opposition that she had received had come from women who felt that such affairs were a male perogative.

“I don’t agree,” declared Mrs. Roberts. “We have to sit at home and wait, and if we can do anything to make things safer at sea, we should.”

Industrial Fishing

Industrial Fishing

INDUSTRIAL FISHING is the operation of fishing vessels on bulk catching of shoal fish for the fish meal or oil reduction plant. It is undertaken off the coasts of many nations on fish stocks that are of little or no use for human consumption. Peru and South Africa spring readily to mind here as do Norway and Iceland in more recent times.

Now efforts are being made to try and promote this type of fishery from Great Britain. In the main the instigations are coming from scientists or economists, mostly in Government service and who see the growth of an important industrial fishery in Britain as a valuable asset to our economic structure in that we might well be able to reduce our imports of fish meal, which are stated to be worth about £30 million per annum.

This is a good idea in theory and would no doubt be of great benefit to the economy in addition to providing an alternative source of fishing to a section of the fishing community. But the whole idea of an industrial fishery could well work out something quite different in practice and much more thought should be given to the whole idea before a large-scale industrial fishery is begun.

Let us take the facts as they come. Firstly, unlike many of the overseas nations Britain does not have any huge resources of unwanted fish in her coastal waters. Resources, that is, of such an extent as to sustain a continuous exploitation. Apart from the localised and erratic sprat fisheries, about the only shoal fishing left is the herring fishery which is much too valuable an asset to be destroyed in this manner.

An industrial fishery would, therefore, have to be based on the stocks of fish in the far offshore waters where scientists have indicated there are huge stocks of unwanted fish such as the blue whiting and Norway Pout and where foreign vessels have been working for quite some time. This area, to the north of Britain, would seem to be the favourite for a British industrial fishery.

So let us look at this fishing and ask ourselves some simple questions. Who would be the men to fish these stocks; what boats would they use; and where would they dispose of their catches? It would have to be the coastal fishermen who would be persuaded to pursue such a fishery. They are the most adaptable to different types of fishing and many are already experienced in ihe local industrial fisheries around the coasts.

Apart from a handful of boats, however, these fishermen would be unable to work such an offshore fishery. Not counting the long steaming distance and the problems of weather, most vessels would probably find their carrying capacity insufficient to justify such operations. It just would not be economical unless the prices paid were really high. And all the boats would have to be converted to suit them to this type of fishing with the additional safety requirements for industrial bulk fishing.

Most of the fishmeal plants would be too small to accommodate such an influx of raw product and those that were would probably be too far away to make it worthwhile. So a new plant would presumably have to be built, or an existing one expanded. Whatever, the case considerable sums of money would be required both at sea and ashore to set up an efficient industrial fishery, quite a lot no doubt from the tax-payer’s pocket.

But there are greater considerations that should be taken into account when this subject is being discussed, apart from the financial side. For instance, how long would an industrial fishery last on these stocks? How long would it be before the boats found the area barren and were forced to look to other grounds or stocks? To be economically feasible alternative stocks would have to be found which could be used to provide a continuity of supply to the reduction plant.

Would these boats then begin to pursue our coastal stocks, including the valuable herring? We all know what the Norwegians and Icelanders did to their herring stocks through industrial fishing. Already Government officials and private business interests have tried to persuade British fishermen to do this. They have and will continue to receive a short and sharp reply. For upon these stocks are to a great extent the livelihood of countless, fishermen. They are not prepared to endanger their own future to satisfy the whims of others whose well-being is totally independent from fishing. If the Government want to spend money on fishing, they say, spend it on some means of conservation of these stocks, not on extermination.

Yet another consideration must be borne in mind. If our coastal stocks are thus exploited, what would be the effect on our other stocks at present fished for human consumption? Have the scientists determined fully what inter-dependence there is between the unwanted stocks and those presently fished for the market and whether there would be any depletion of one if the other were taken away? In other words, before any large-scale industrial fishing is begun the fishermen would want conclusive evidence from the scientists not only of the extent of those stocks available but also of the probable effects of their exploitation on other fisheries.

A few years ago fishermen might well have been persuaded into such operations. Today, however, there is a new class of fisherman emerging, more intelligent and more interested in his job than ever before. He will not be lead by the hand any more but is surely becoming more capable of leading the way himself.

Last year Ireland opened a marvellous new fish meal plant at Mornington on the east coast. This move is regarded as a tragic blunder as the company running it must by now be realising. Its establishment was the result of a very go-ahead firm and a very keen, yet somewhat inexperienced Irish Fisheries Board, combining to bring greater prosperity both to the nation and the fishermen. The siting of the plant on the Irish Sea was the blunder. Apart from a few local boats the plant has done little good to the majority of fishermen working in the Irish Sea. And there just isn’t the amount of fish required available there to supply such a capacity. And Ireland has no boats of sufficient size to allow them to proceed to the North Scottish grounds for these huge stocks that the scientists say are there. The astonishing thing about this venture is that very few fishermen in the Irish Sea were consulted prior to its establishment. Had they been consulted they would have certainly given it a ‘thumbs-down’ sign.

A very similar situation is developing in Britain with government officials and private business interests seeing the economic benefits to be derived from an industrial fishery. But before any moves are made we consider it imperative that all the side-effects of such a fishery are thoroughly considered and the maximum advice sought from the men who have to catch the fish. It is easy to juggle with figures on paper. It is another thing to go out day-after-day looking for and catching the fish. The practical aspects of this type of fishing must be thoroughly taken into account before any moves are made to establish a large-scale industrial fishery.

The majority of fishermen in Britain are against industrial fishing. It is a messy, soul-destroying job which would have to pay remarkably well to compare with fishing for the consumer market. It is more dangerous and as such would be considered last of all. Then there is the fact that those boats employed in such a role would be taken off other fishing for the food market, possibly creating local shortages and resulting in increased imports of fish.

No. The idea of an industrial fishery in Britain might sound good in theory and look good on paper. But when the practical aspects are considered, then we consider it better to leave well alone. There are enough problems facing the fishermen and the industry as it is.

Source: Peter Brady
Commercial Fishing
March 1970

Commercial Fishing

Commercial Fishing
Mr. Edward Heath, Prime Minister of the U.K.

AN OPEN LETTER TO

Gentlemen:
We write this letter to you in serious urgency. It is said that a general agreement as to whether or not our two countries will or will not be accepted into the European Economic Community is to be made by June this year, or thereabouts. By this we assume that the negotiators will have given a general acceptance to the terms offered us by the present members of the EEC, either as they stand now, or with last-minute modifications.

It is with dismay and apprehension that we have witnessed the casual manner in which our governments have treated the question of fisheries in these negotiations. Fishing may only play a small part in our national economies but it does involve the capital investment of many millions of pounds in catching units, harbour facilities, and shore plants in addition to providing a livelihood for tens of thousands of people, not only in the catching side but in many ancillary industries.

At no time in the long history of. fishing in these islands has our industry been in such a high state of efficiency and with such a bright outlook ahead. True, the industry is not as efficient as some of those in the EEC countries, but it is rapildy moving in the right direction. The long toil by the men over the past few years is now beginning to reap dividends.

Yet all this is threatened with extinction by the present Common Fisheries Policy of the EEC. There are many points in this policy that, were they accepted by us, could seriously reverse the fortunes of our fisheries. There is, however, one over-riding point that would without doubt result in the certain collapse of a greater part of our industry.
It is the ruling that all member states of the EEC have an equal right of access to the coastal waters of their partners iii the Community that is causing despair within the industry.

The coastal waters around the European and Scandinavian coasts have for long been among the most productive in the world. But over the years indiscriminate overfishing, the introduction of over-intensive catching methods, and the destruction of immature stocks have resulted in many of these coastal waters becoming barren.

The British Isles has some excellent coastal fishing grounds, and as our fisheries in general have always been behind the continent in efficiency and productivity, our grounds are more or less still quite productive. In fact, for certain species, such as the herring, the coastal waters of the British Isles are now the last stronghold for these stocks. Most are protected from foreign vessels by being within our 12 mile fishing limits. Because of this the Continentals and Scandinavians cannot pursue these stocks with their own catchers so they have to send freighters to buy the fish from British and Irish catchers, in order to fulfil the tremendous demand back home. This is just one species that the highly-efficient vessels from these countries cannot pursue because of the protection of our limits.

Having slaughtered the herring stocks in their own waters, they are now eagerly awaiting the time when they can come inside our limits. They do not hide their eagerness to get us in the EEC for this one reason. But unlike the fishermen of the British Isles, who have in general a healthy regard for the conservation of existing stocks in order to safeguard their future, these continentals do not. We can see ample evidence in the way they have wiped their own coastal stocks out. Now they want to do the same here.

There have been many ‘expert’ views put forward by economists and others on the advantages and disadvantages of our entry into the EEC on the current terms of the Common Fisheries Policy. Almost to a man they have failed to take into account the practical aspects of such a move. Obviously they don’t know what these are. Yet there is no-one within our industry who cannot forsee the result of our exclusive 12 mile fishing zone being taken away or modified.

Various alternatives have been put forward in order to try and get around this obstacle. Certain breeding areas will be protected; differential limit lines in different areas; and the interests of the fishermen will be fully taken into account, etc. etc. Anyone who is involved in the practical side of fishing can see that these would just not be workable and are only political gimmicry.

Source: Peter Brady
Commercial Fishing
30/04/1971

Fishermen get more pay and holidays.

Provided by Les Howard

An award by the Trawler Fishing Industry Joint Industrial Council last week gave the country’s fishermen a wage increase of 1/- a day and three extra days holiday. Mr J P O’Donnell, Fleetwood secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents the port’s 1200 fishermen, welcomed the awards as a “step in the right direction.”

“Not as much as we expected but pretty fair all round,” was how he summed it up.

The awards came after deadlock had been reached between the trawler owners and the union. The application for more pay and longer holidays had been lodged in June. A month later the trawler owners had offered 9d a day more but no offer on holidays.

The men will now get 24 days annual holiday including seven as compensation for Bank Holidays which crews at sea have to work.
The last award was just over 12 months ago when the men got an extra 1/6 a day plus an extra 6d in the £100 on a vessel’s gross earnings.

Port Registrations

England & Wales Port Registrations
AB: Aberystwyth
BD: Bideford
BE: Barnstaple
BH: Blyth
BK: Berwick-on-Tweed
BL: Bristol
BM: Brixham
BN: Boston
BR: Bridgwater
BS: Beaumaris
BW: Barrow
CA: Cardigan
CF: Cardiff
CH: Chester
CK: Colchester
CL: Carlisle
CO: Caernarvon
CS: Cowes
DH: Dartmouth
DR: Dover
E: Exeter
F: Faversham
FD: Fleetwood
FE: Folkestone
FH: Falmouth
FY: Fowey
GE: Goole
GR: Gloucester
GY: Grimsby
H: Hull
HH: Harwich
HL: Hartlepool
IH: Ipswich
LA: Llanelly
LI: Littlehampton
LL: Liverpool
LN: King’s Lynn
LO: London
LR: Lancaster
LT: Lowestoft
M: Milford Haven
MH: Middlesbrough
MN: Maldon
MR: Manchester
MT: Maryport
NE: Newcastle
NN: Newhaven
NT: Newport, Gwent
P: Portsmouth
PE: Poole
PH: Plymouth
PN: Preston
PT: Port Talbot
PW: Padstow
PZ: Penzance
R: Ramsgate
RN: Runcorn
RR: Rochester
RX: Rye
SA: Swansea
SC: Scilly
SD: Sunderland
SE: Salcombe
SH: Scarborough
SM: Shoreham
SN: Shields, North
SS: St. Ives
SSS: Shields, South
ST: Stockton
SU: Southampton
TH: Teignmouth
TO: Truro
WA: Whitehaven
WH: Weymouth
WI: Wisbech
WO: Workington
WY: Whitby
YH: Great Yarmouth

Scottish Port Registrations
A: Aberdeen
AA: Alloa
AD: Ardrossan
AH: Arbroath
AR: Ayr
BA: Ballantrae
BC: Buckie
BF: Banff
BO: Borrowstoness
BRD: Broadford
BU: Burntisland
CN: Campbeltown
CY: Castlebay, Barra
DE: Dundee
DS: Dumfries
FR: Fraserburgh
GH: Grangemouth
GK: Greenock
GN: Granton
GW: Glasgow
IE: Irvine
INS: Inverness
K: Kirkwall
KY: Kirkcaldy
LH: Leith
LK: Lerwick
ME: Montrose
ME: Methil
OB: Oban
PD: Peterhead
RO: Rothesay
SR: Stranraer
TN: Troon
TT: Tarbert, Loch Fyne
SY: Stornoway
UL: Ullapool
WK: Wick
WN: Wigtown

Northern Ireland Port Registrations
B: Belfast
CE: Coleraine
LY: Londonderry
N: Newry