>

the fact that it isn't already is worrying.
Faster, EU. At that speed there won't be any biodiversity left by the time the ban comes into effect. >

What we need are mines that prevent bottom trawling. They could sit harmlessly just off the ocean floor, but if a trawler snags them they are triggered by pressure sensor just as they are hauled on board. Their presence in an area should be loudly declared to operators and insurance companies, as their purpose would be to make it too expensive to illegally fish an area. No people ever need to be actually harmed. >

That's a very expensive operation.  Any sort of electronics that has to sit on the ocean floor requires constant maintenance.
I would propose a simpler solution:
Issue letters of marque for illegal fishing. >

Becomes too easy to pirate legit ships. If there are no survivors there is no other side to the story. >

The 'legit' ships are screwing us over too.  What we need is a moratorium on all fishing so...I don't see this is a bad thing. >

This would incentivize shitty bad for the environment ships on the water. Anyone who could get their hands on a ship and some firepower, is how I see this turning out. Real unscrupulous types. How is this going to help again? >

Net reduction in fishing for cheaper than a global network of mines >

A lot more poluting ships on the ocean is bad news for fish. Increased piracy is bad news for all shipping services. The medicine seems worse than the disease. >

Ban it everywhere >

I wish they could too, but if they say it without being able to back it up with action, nobody would take them seriously anymore, like North Korea. >

They were providing NK as an example of something that isn’t taken seriously, not as a member of the EU. Re-read their comment. >

Is bottom trawling currently allowed in protected areas...?
This seems like someone missed the point of "protecting". >

It depends on the country I believe. In France it is highly regulated if not straighforward forbiden. Still even in areas where it is forbiden some fishermen will try to sneak. Chinese are well known for that. >

Honestly need environmental ocean version of batman. Would be a shame if all those illegal fishing ships mysteriously started sinking and had to SOS. But that really wouldn't fix the problem... >

You mean like Aquaman? >

The Deep? >

justiceforTimothy >

Just protected areas? >

Way overdue, >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


EU countries will be required to reduce the harmful impacts of fishing on sensitive species and their habitats, under a draft EU biodiversity plan seen by EURACTIV. The "EU Action Plan to protect and restore marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries" is expected to be released in the first quarter of 2023 by the European Commission.
Under the draft plan, bottom trawling would be banned in Marine Protected Areas by 2030 but would still be allowed outside of those.
The proposal to prohibit bottom trawling in marine protected areas by 2030 is a full seven years from now, NGOs point out, warning that it is counterintuitive to continue destruction until then in MPAs, which are areas in special need of protection.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: plan^#1 marine^#2 biodiversity^#3 Commission^#4 fish^#5 >

We need to ban bottom trawling on HALF of the oceans fertile areas across the entire world. (Most of it is a desert).
Greenpeace was on the right track with littering the floor of reserves with giant concrete blocks.  Anyone illegally trawling would have their gear destroyed. It’s a bit of ocean litter yes but it’s a necessary evil. >

Kill two birds with one stone and cover the ocean floor with big iron spikes! Promote growth of reefs and shred their stupid nets >

How is this not already a thing?
And how can it take until 2030 to actually enact this law? >

What? It isn't already??? >


Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. – CEO Nwabudike Morgan in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

/s >

Morgan was short sighted IMO. You can skin a sheep once, but you can shear it almost as long as it lives. Ecosystems have enough slack to harvest some without collapsing them. Or at least they had enough slack until humanity went into consumption/population overdrive. >

It should never have been allowed in the first place!
Imagine killing an entire forest for the few deer that live there. Same thing. >

Fucking finally, should of happened 30 years ago. >

It should be banned period. But no profits first. >

At that speed there won't be any biodiversity left by the time the ban comes into effect. >

Geez bottom trawling has been illegal in my city for years now. Awful technique which destroys and capture everything. By 2030 it's laughable >


bottom trawling has been illegal in my city

Er, Sponge Bob is that you? >

What? >

Bottom trawling isn't illegal in your city, it's illegal in the water near your city.
r/EmmanuelleCunt pointed out that if it was illegal in your city, it would mean your city was underwater and that's basically what sponge bob city is. >

Geez >

How did you not get the joke straight away? It's actually impressive. >

maybe a cultural difference (some older people may not know about spongebob, or living in a country that didn't buy spongebob tv right on free channels) >

Ban trawling in every area!
It's to the point we know we are killing our earth and she us fighting back >

The government sure loves procrastinating when it comes to protecting the environment >

I don’t understand how bottom trawling is still legal. This should be banned everywhere >

People like to eat crabs.  Thsy"s where the crabs are. >

This is dumb and they may as well do nothing if the ban doesn’t go into effect immediately! Waiting until 2030 is far too long for this to matter, it will all be ruined by then. Furthermore, this practice should simply be banned entirely! It is insanely destructive and if the aim is to help bio-diversity then half measures are bs! >

That’s the whole point. By the time it goes into effect, it won’t be a profitable technique. The ultra wealthy always seem to get their way. >

Hang on, what are they protecting in the protected areas if you can still do the most devistating form of fishing. >

Good. Get that shit outta here. >

Should be banned altogether. >

Finally.  This kind of fishing needs to be banned everywhere. >

This is good, but we need more. >

And not several decades too late! >

Here is the kicker. The Dutch have  a method (electric fishing) the will send an electric pulse and the fish will jump from the bottom. It only catches the fish that are targeted, the bottom itself will be saved and young fish are missed. Yes, you will still catch fish, but the damage to the environment is otherwise nill.
Although this is a great environmental friendly method, it was made illegal by Europe, because the French, Spanish and Belgium fishermen wanted to use the old method.
No, neither method should be used in protected areas, but for the rest it was much better. Yet, it is still illegal >

What a load of crap and lies. Do a simple google search and learn about electic stun fishing, which destroys even more than trawling.
The dutch fishing industry is among the worst and most destructive in the EU. I hope they pay you well write you bullshit. >

Then they're not fucking protected.
I need better crazy pills, these ones aren't fun anymore. >

Plan? It’s too late! >

No it's not. It is never too late to stop destroying the environment. >

Very true. We’re past the point of undoing the damage and are rapidly approaching the point of mitigating the consequences of our damage. Now we have the choice to stop making it worse or lean in on destroying the planet for profits. >

But let me guess; they're going to continue bottom trawling UK waters. Can't wait for these bastards to get banned from UK waters in 2026 when the Brexit deal enforces it. >

It's a shame the European Parliament banned pulse fishing in stead of studying it more. It looked like a promising replacement that would leave the ocean floor intact (although the impact on certain fish are not clear yet). But it became a political issue between the Netherlands and France, with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling. >


with France flexing it's political muscle to kill the practice in favor of the traditional bottom trawling. 

After the Netherlands wasted all goodwill getting way more experimental permits than intented. Still, a scientific basis should be more important than all this political mud slinging. >

Agreed, the Netherlands isn't blameless in this. It's just sad to see a promising technology be shelved for something that's proven to be harmful.