Did you see the letter written by Peter Wood of Glass Eels Ltd in the Guardian letter page Saturday 9 November? (Why export of eels to Russia makes sense).
I certainly did Pam. Peter Wood is the elver exporter making millions from selling elvers to Russia so very keen to justify the trade and the Guardian should have made this clear. Much of what he says in that letter is not true. I have plenty of evidence that the lagoons are badly polluted, that the Russians actually say that they plan to catch and eat all the eels that grow there and that the restocking therefore appears not to have any conservation value whatsoever. To call these lagoons pristine habitat is utterly absurd. The First Minister of Kaliningrad has said he hopes the catch of eels in the lagoons will rise from 15 tonnes pa to 400. That is the plan for the exported UK elvers.
Your articles should be part of the school curriculum. So erudite, so to the point. I love your style and the effortless way you get complex facts across ❤️
On Elizabeth Oldfield's podcast 'The Sacred' she starts by asking guests what is sacred to them. I find the question unanswerable because 'sacred' means both 'reverenced' and 'inviolable' and it's hard, if you care about things like this, to see those two things as in any way congruent. There's this bewildered sense of 'how is it even possible that they are able to do this?' I think this captures it well - starting with the title.
I'm afraid very little in our landscape is seen as either sacred or inviolable. The Russian trade is based on the idea that there is a 'surplus' of elvers which would be an ecological absurdity even if eels were not critically endangered.
Maybe you and your contacts might like to give my petition a nudge? It has got Defra really rattled.
Did you see the letter written by Peter Wood of Glass Eels Ltd in the Guardian letter page Saturday 9 November? (Why export of eels to Russia makes sense).
I certainly did Pam. Peter Wood is the elver exporter making millions from selling elvers to Russia so very keen to justify the trade and the Guardian should have made this clear. Much of what he says in that letter is not true. I have plenty of evidence that the lagoons are badly polluted, that the Russians actually say that they plan to catch and eat all the eels that grow there and that the restocking therefore appears not to have any conservation value whatsoever. To call these lagoons pristine habitat is utterly absurd. The First Minister of Kaliningrad has said he hopes the catch of eels in the lagoons will rise from 15 tonnes pa to 400. That is the plan for the exported UK elvers.
Your articles should be part of the school curriculum. So erudite, so to the point. I love your style and the effortless way you get complex facts across ❤️
Good to hear from you again Deborah. I just love my loyal readers.
On Elizabeth Oldfield's podcast 'The Sacred' she starts by asking guests what is sacred to them. I find the question unanswerable because 'sacred' means both 'reverenced' and 'inviolable' and it's hard, if you care about things like this, to see those two things as in any way congruent. There's this bewildered sense of 'how is it even possible that they are able to do this?' I think this captures it well - starting with the title.
I'm afraid very little in our landscape is seen as either sacred or inviolable. The Russian trade is based on the idea that there is a 'surplus' of elvers which would be an ecological absurdity even if eels were not critically endangered.
Maybe you and your contacts might like to give my petition a nudge? It has got Defra really rattled.
You mean this one? chng.it/FnDpvGsTvq :-)
So far I have only sent to one person who had already signed it.
I'll have a think.