The findings of acoustic seal deterrent trials undertaken in an inshore gill net fishery have…
It's more than a little strange for Greenpeace, in its attempts to demonise the NFFO, to claim that we should "respect scientific advice rather than rubbishing it".
Where have they been?
Haven't they heard of the ground-breaking Fisheries Science Partnership, which has set the standard for participative scientific advice in Europe, and which the NFFO pioneered along with CEFAS and DEFRA?
Or what about the NFFO's role in the NWWRAC's data deficiency initiative, working with ICES?
Or our work with scientists on long term management plans in the Celtic sea, the Irish Sea and the North Sea?
Wasn't the NFFO a leading member of the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership that established a dialogue with scientists at an international level for the first time and led to the establishment of the North Sea RAC?
Hasn't the NFFO called for the Commission to take into account the latest scientific work on deep sea fisheries?
Once again some rudimentary homework would have saved Greenpeace a lot of embarrassment. The first rule of science is "get your facts right". As we have said on more than one occasion now, fishermen have a deep interest in objective, rigorous, impartial science - if only to fend off the more outlandish claims of professional doomsayers like Greenpeace.