Cornwall fishermen make plea over lost lobster pots
-
We (EU residents) do subsidise Champagne and truffle production. (EEC regional assistance and rural subsidies)
If say the region got hit by severe storms and a few months production halted, would you expect to be bailed out by the state?
-
If say the region got hit by severe storms and a few months production halted, would you expect to be bailed out by the state?
Yes - afraid we would - it happens all the time. Remember the hailstones a few winters backed that did huge damage to French/German vineyards?
-
Yes - afraid we would - it happens all the time. Remember the hailstones a few winters backed that did huge damage to French/German vineyards?
Now ordinary vinyards, I can imagine getting compensation, but how about Champagne? Like the lobsters, it is a luxury product, and it is deeply unjust that the tax payer should cough up.
-
How the hell can you say that? POint 1. Those pots are perfectly OK, and can be reused. I saw the pictures of them, I have seen plenty of pots in use, underwater and on the keyside. Point 2. The south west fishermen are well known for lying to the govt to get cash. A favourite was putting some old nets over the side, and gong submarine hunting off Plymouth. Catch a sub, get new nets. Point 3. Lack of fishing now, due to storms, will increase yields when they restart. This will give them the extra income they need. Point 4. Put a few quid extra on the lobster will easily pay for any repairs to their pots, of needed, and the kind of people who eat lobster can easily afford it.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
How the hell can you say that?
Easy, it's true. Point 1. The picture was not necessarily current. Point 2. Not true. Point 3. Possibly, but nothing is guaranteed in fishing. Point 4. They need the cash now, and as everyone knows, it's not the fishermen who control the prices.
-
Fishermen in Cornwall are calling for help with the cost of replacing hundreds of crab and lobster pots missing or damaged in the storms[^] Sounds reasonable you might think, the hard pressed fishermen want a bit of public money to buy new pots. But hang on, the tax payer should pay so that rich people can still buy lobster at 30 pounds a kilo? Just increase the price of the lobsters to 33 pounds a kilo! Why should the tax payer subsidise rich peoples luxurious eating habits! Holy crap, we will be asked to subsidise truffle and champagne production next!
The picture of him with the pots behind reminds me of sea monsters wearing snazzy bonnets. Lucky old devil, he is. All those pretty girls to choose from. :)
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Cornish fishermen are not well paid
Tough, neither are lots of UK taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill.
Dalek Dave wrote:
They have no lobster pots
BS. The pots have been moved around and tangled by the storm. They need untangling and repairing.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Most of the cost of the Lobster is paid to the Restaurant, The Haulier, The Wholesaler etc, so a 10% increase in price would give the poor fisherman about 30p
Blah blah blah. So charge more. Period.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The capital outlay is more than they could reasonably afford
Bits of old car tyre and re-bar? You clearly have no idea what a lobster pot is. And finally, Dave, you forgot the one big thing. While they aren't fishing stocks are increasing, so when they do they will get a bumper harvest. That's going to pay for any pot repairs. Look, this is basically a bunch of crafty Cornish fishermen out to make a bit of money on the sly. Nothing new there, they used to go submarine hunting when they wanted new nets off the Navy. So don't be so gullible eh?
That they're meeting an MP in Padstow is revealing. Lunch at Rick Stein's anyone?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Now ordinary vinyards, I can imagine getting compensation, but how about Champagne? Like the lobsters, it is a luxury product, and it is deeply unjust that the tax payer should cough up.
Indeed - but other parts of the world can't make Champagne (for legal reasons). In point of fact Australian sparkling Chardonnay is way nicer) so it is a fantastic export product. I'd guess the same is true for lobster and truffles. In particular the Chinese and Japanese pay truly startling amounts for these products. This offsets (very slightly) the amount of trade imbalance that we have which requires government borrowing to address, so in fact subsidising these reduces the burden on the tax payer.
-
That they're meeting an MP in Padstow is revealing. Lunch at Rick Stein's anyone?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
The picture of him with the pots behind reminds me of sea monsters wearing snazzy bonnets. Lucky old devil, he is. All those pretty girls to choose from. :)
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
You can see in his eyes he is a crafty bugger just taking us for a ride.
-
Indeed - but other parts of the world can't make Champagne (for legal reasons). In point of fact Australian sparkling Chardonnay is way nicer) so it is a fantastic export product. I'd guess the same is true for lobster and truffles. In particular the Chinese and Japanese pay truly startling amounts for these products. This offsets (very slightly) the amount of trade imbalance that we have which requires government borrowing to address, so in fact subsidising these reduces the burden on the tax payer.
I know, but would you expect the EU to bail out Champagne vinyards if they got hit by a storm? Personally I would say tough, tae it out of you massive profit margins.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
How the hell can you say that?
Easy, it's true. Point 1. The picture was not necessarily current. Point 2. Not true. Point 3. Possibly, but nothing is guaranteed in fishing. Point 4. They need the cash now, and as everyone knows, it's not the fishermen who control the prices.
Facile you mean... 1) I saw pics on the news, the fisherman was explaining how tangled up they are. 2) It is. 3) I forgot what I posted. But I knew a guy on subs who said this. They used to hook up quite a few trawlers near Plymouth, and got suspicious when they realised they were being followed by them. 4) So give them loans rather than bail outs. Ha, got you there! :) As for not controlling the prices, they should, if not they are a bunch of wimps who should organise a union to set prices.
-
You can see in his eyes he is a crafty bugger just taking us for a ride.
He should set up a "lobster pot" brides for sale website. I'm in.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Facile you mean... 1) I saw pics on the news, the fisherman was explaining how tangled up they are. 2) It is. 3) I forgot what I posted. But I knew a guy on subs who said this. They used to hook up quite a few trawlers near Plymouth, and got suspicious when they realised they were being followed by them. 4) So give them loans rather than bail outs. Ha, got you there! :) As for not controlling the prices, they should, if not they are a bunch of wimps who should organise a union to set prices.
-
Yep, reckon you are right there! Something else to slap on the expenses for us tax payers to shell out for.:mad:
Well we can hope they all get Botulism from a bad prawn - or is that just shellfish of me?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
I know, but would you expect the EU to bail out Champagne vinyards if they got hit by a storm? Personally I would say tough, tae it out of you massive profit margins.
probably not, but because the product is luxury, doesn't automatically mean the producer shouldn't be subsidised. For example as a UK resident you have provided a great deal of subsidy to Bombadier (after they acquired Shorts Bros) and their main product is executive jets.
-
Well we can hope they all get Botulism from a bad prawn - or is that just shellfish of me?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
boom-cha!
-
probably not, but because the product is luxury, doesn't automatically mean the producer shouldn't be subsidised. For example as a UK resident you have provided a great deal of subsidy to Bombadier (after they acquired Shorts Bros) and their main product is executive jets.
Ah, well big industry was always an issue, but I didn't know the UK psrt subsidised Bombardier? They make lovely planes though, I always enjoy flying on the CRJs.
-
Fishermen in Cornwall are calling for help with the cost of replacing hundreds of crab and lobster pots missing or damaged in the storms[^] Sounds reasonable you might think, the hard pressed fishermen want a bit of public money to buy new pots. But hang on, the tax payer should pay so that rich people can still buy lobster at 30 pounds a kilo? Just increase the price of the lobsters to 33 pounds a kilo! Why should the tax payer subsidise rich peoples luxurious eating habits! Holy crap, we will be asked to subsidise truffle and champagne production next!
He's in a business where loss/damage by storms should be expected. He should either factor that into his price, have insurance, or both. At the end of the day, what should happen is that he goes out of business. The more fishermen that go out of business because they're operating a business that is eventually doomed to fail, the sooner the market will compensate by raising the cost of lobster to a price that makes lobster fishing sustainable again (well, not for the lobsters.) If you can't tell, I loathe gov't subsidies that the taxpayer pays for. For all the rhetoric about democracy, we live in a socialistic poverty economy world. Marc
-
He's in a business where loss/damage by storms should be expected. He should either factor that into his price, have insurance, or both. At the end of the day, what should happen is that he goes out of business. The more fishermen that go out of business because they're operating a business that is eventually doomed to fail, the sooner the market will compensate by raising the cost of lobster to a price that makes lobster fishing sustainable again (well, not for the lobsters.) If you can't tell, I loathe gov't subsidies that the taxpayer pays for. For all the rhetoric about democracy, we live in a socialistic poverty economy world. Marc
-
He's in a business where loss/damage by storms should be expected. He should either factor that into his price, have insurance, or both. At the end of the day, what should happen is that he goes out of business. The more fishermen that go out of business because they're operating a business that is eventually doomed to fail, the sooner the market will compensate by raising the cost of lobster to a price that makes lobster fishing sustainable again (well, not for the lobsters.) If you can't tell, I loathe gov't subsidies that the taxpayer pays for. For all the rhetoric about democracy, we live in a socialistic poverty economy world. Marc
I quite agree. Its normal wear and tear and let the free market let those survive who can!
