Super trawler politics

[TheRealAndy]

Sorry folks, I got to do this. Since my involvement in fighting for the recreational fisher, I have been beaten from all directions. I have seen great science dismissed by recreational fishermen due to pure ignorance, and I have seen fishing bans implemented due to pure ignorance by pro green lobby groups.

Now the recent bill introduced to prevent super trawler fishing in Australia waters is based purely on the principle that got the green zones introduced in Queensland. Yup, that is that great old term we all hate, the "precautionary principle"... We don't know that it is a problem, but lets pretend it is, just like the green zones on moreton bay and great barrier reef.

This pisses me off no end, because the hypocrisy from the recreational sector is no better than what we expect from the greens. How many people actually know what the this trawler is going to take? How many know what impact this will have on the environment? Yet we all oppose it...

I am not saying for a second that its a good thing, what annoys me most is a foreign vessel is capitalising on our fishery. But perhaps we should attack this based on the correct political reasoning, not the green reason.

[goat boy]

How many recs opposed this? I haven't seen alot of organised rec opposition (try getting us organised on anything). It WAS petty politics that stopped the trawler, in that enough people, from all alreas, all walks of life and varying POV, made enough of a hoo haa that the govt went 'Sh!t, this is potential votes loss on a scale big enough to make us care'. And they did something. Political decisions are forever based on what is seen as popular idealism, regardless if it is detrimental or not. You answered your own question when you mentioned the green zones/marine parks and why they're implemented.
And really, considering marine parks, green zones, strict rulings on pro's and how they operate, the broadening spread of public talk that rec fishers
are bad and the general consensus that environmental awareness and protection is a very aware topic with the public, it's not surprising at all.
I guess, to put it another way and see how your own question is posed here. Would you, personally, be for or against whaling in our waters, by foreign or sovereign fleets? Why yes? Why No?
Vary rarely does anything get attacked on correct political reasoning....

[Lancair]

http://www.news.com.au/national/super-trawler-banned-from-fishing-in-australian-waters-by-federal-government/story-fndo4eg9-1226473643263

[nigelr]

So are you saying Andy that you would rather see it operate here while the science was done? Presumably it hasn't been done beforehand....
Personally with this issue I think the ends justifies the means; what "pisses me off" is that they were told they could operate here in the first place.....
Not sure you are comparing apples with apples comparing rec fishers to greens.....somewhat different animals in my view.
I do believe they (green, preservationist groups) make extremely dangerous bedfellows..........and agree that having to be allied with them is, shall I say, contentious.......
Cheers.

[NAGG]

From my perspective the supertrawler uses an indiscriminate form of fishing - netting! ...... With a net so large that there is no way it can be used selectively & will kill a shit load of bycatch or marine mammals.
I'm not a supporter of any form of commercial fishing that requires a net to actually drag the catch out of the water.
I dont think that you have to use science to determine every policy related to fishing - some just make common sense .......

Chris

[samson]

The way it is the boats owners have got quota their going to catch that quota regardless of which size boat they use the real question is would you prefer a large boat fill the quota in a short period or would you prefer smaller boats fishing the whole year, this dispute is pretty pointless the fish are gonna get caught anyway the only thing that would stop that is to stop the licence not the boat,just my view looking at it without the blinders on and to settle anybodies nerves i do appose netting but without It I think we would probably suffer.

[Camhawk88]

My thoughts on that Samson is that it would be more beneficial for the smaller Australian operators to take the quota as it would mean more of the $s would be spread among the local community rather than all being siphoned offshore with very few benefits for Australia. They are our fish we should be getting the benefit. Another question to ponder is if this is a sustainable form of fishing why would they need to travel to the other side of the world for the operation to be viable? If it is so sustainable then surely they can stay at home to fish where their stocks would presumably be in good nick.

[Jarrah Jack]

There was a lot of organized protest by rec fishers down here in Vic and Tassie. We've also got a few substantial towns that are coming to rely on the $$ that rec fishers bring in.

We may yet see a reduction in the quota because of the attention that the protest has brought to the issue. I think even to hear the words" recreational fisherman" mentioned in parliament during this debate is a big step forward because it means they are taking notice of us. In that regard the issue doesn't matter so much, its the fact that we can mobilize with enough force to be taken notice of.

I'm sick of seeing the greens being mentioned all the time and using their clout on the back of 13% or so of votes. They play the lobby game very well though and as we know truth or fact or good science has nothing to do with convincing pollies. It comes down to much baser human relations and emotions.

[Qlder1]

Really the question is, was there corruption with the quota process...going from 8000 tonnes to 18000 tonnes seems to be a little extreme, the science for that decision outdated and disputed by other studies, the concerns of some AFMA members re the decision making process etc, etc....

Science is a funny thing, the same results can be interpreted completely differently by opposing groups. At least this decision has given us a 2 year reprieve.

Someone once said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome each time" or something like it, well if we need science to justify this trawler, surely the history of these ships can also be used as evidence?

One thing I will be interested to see is who voted for the bill and who voted against, opposition to this equals no respect for public opinion and a pandering to commercial interests..(in my opinion ;) )

[SunnyCoastMark]

Sorry folks, I got to do this. Since my involvement in fighting for the recreational fisher, I have been beaten from all directions. I have seen great science dismissed by recreational fishermen due to pure ignorance, and I have seen fishing bans implemented due to pure ignorance by pro green lobby groups.

Now the recent bill introduced to prevent super trawler fishing in Australia waters is based purely on the principle that got the green zones introduced in Queensland. Yup, that is that great old term we all hate, the "precautionary principle"... We don't know that it is a problem, but lets pretend it is, just like the green zones on moreton bay and great barrier reef.

This pisses me off no end, because the hypocrisy from the recreational sector is no better than what we expect from the greens. How many people actually know what the this trawler is going to take? How many know what impact this will have on the environment? Yet we all oppose it...

I am not saying for a second that its a good thing, what annoys me most is a foreign vessel is capitalising on our fishery. But perhaps we should attack this based on the correct political reasoning, not the green reason.

You're kidding aren't you Andy??

Look at the size of the bloody thing. Regardless of the science, or the politics, or the facts and figures, or the greens or the rec fishos or the commercial fishos; whatever - this is a huge trawler from overseas, that is going to take 1000's of tonnes of fish from Australian waters.

I guarantee you that all the studies and impact assesments in the world will be meaningless. No one will really know what the impacts are until after the fact - by which time it will be too late.>:(

Should not happen! Cannot happen!

Why are they here? - IMO because they have raped and pillage fish stocks every where else to the extent the it is not economically viable to fish anywhere else.

As for politics - on one hand the government is buying back fishing licenses in an effort to reduce catches and preserve fish stocks and then on the other hand they entertain the idea of a super trawler??

It really is a no brainer -

Mark

[rabbi]

Should not happen! Cannot happen!

Why are they here? - IMO because they have raped and pillage fish stocks every where else to the extent the it is not economically viable to fish anywhere else.


Mark[/QUOTE]

You only have to look at how this vessel and others like it have absolutely decimated fish stocks in other parts of the world.
Whoever brought this thing here should go back with it!!
And take our politicians who are decimating Australia with it>:(>:(

[Mike Delisser]

Heaps of missinformation on this issue over the last few weeks but at least it's not going to happen, at least for 2 years. But I'm dissappointed the Coalition has opposed stoping the super trawler. What's going to happen in 12 months after the next Fed election when Labor get the boot. Below is from the Tassie Mercury earlier this week




Libs slam trawler ban
September 11, 2012 02.13pm


A FEDERAL Government decision to ban super trawlers will damage investment in the fishing industry, says Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck.
Senator Colbeck, the Coalition's fisheries spokesman, told a joint party room meeting in Canberra the decision would put business investment at risk. He told colleagues that certainty of fishing rights was vital for businesses seeking finance from banks, and the Federal Government's decision would threaten their viability.
Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke and Federal Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig today said the super trawler Abel Tasman would not be able to fish in Australian waters for at least two years (http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/09/11/360561_todays-news.html) while an expert panel assessed its potential impact.

[finga]

So are you saying Andy that you would rather see it operate here while the science was done? Presumably it hasn't been done beforehand....
Personally with this issue I think the ends justifies the means; what "pisses me off" is that they were told they could operate here in the first place......
Yep, that's the crook bit I reckon.
When you develop a block of land you apply to Councils for approval to develop that land.
Council then tells you okky dokky BUT only if you abide by these conditions and do this and that and a few other things.
Council has placed limitations upon you to do the right thing in regards to public convention.
With this trawler there should have been an application process where the science should have been done by the applicants and all the bugs should have been sorted out before approval was even granted. If the science was dodgy then the people who rights the approvals simply say....Nope. Try again and do it better this time.

This process is the thing that should be investigated and is what we should be up in arms about not the trawler.
Why?? The trawler would never had come if the application was refused.

I wonder what the process would be if I wanted to build a nuclear power plant in Springwood?? (sorry Phill)
I'd fill out a form and submit it to Brisbane City Council wouldn't I?
Then what would happen?

I can understand people do not want the trawler. I don't want the trawler but put yourself in their boots.
You want to build a fish processing plant in your backyard in Victoria Point to process 5 tons of Mackeral a day and Redlands Council grants you approval based on old dodgy statistics (which the council recognises and believes and does not question) and you build a plant and start processing mackeral at the rate of 5 ton/day. Then people kick up a stink about it.
Who's to blame really?? You or the people who gave you permission to do it?

[SHOOTER1]

Lets build a nuclear reactor in Springwood we can waffle on about economic benefits,
clean power etc then let's form a commitee comprised of independant experts and do a 2 year study. Surprise surprise it doesn't get approved due to community concerns.
It shocks me how out of touch the pollies are!! Did they not think there would not be a huge public outcry about the super trawler? Did they think Australians are that stupid and they wouldn't see the hypocrycy of establishing Marine Parks and at the same time letting this killing machine into whatever is left. Also the only mention of bycatch has been seals and dolphins. What about all of the other untargeted fish species it will masacre. Just look at the Shark net fishery in the QLD gulf. They target Grey and Spanish mackeral and are allowed to keep and sell as bycatch. How many Southern Bluefin, sharks etc was this monster going to harvest as bycatch or maybe they just discard. It's not rocket science this should never have got off the ground.
Our pollies are an embarrasment!!!

[johncar]

Yes what idiot approved this venture in the first place and what will be the cost to us taxpayers for the impending damages that will no doubt be pursued by the company involved, just another grand stuff up on top of countless others we have witnessed. Dragging out thousands of tonnes of targeted wild fish from our oceans, not to mention the even bigger tonnage of murdered bycatch is not an "INDUSTRY" it's bad! bad! bad! and it's not something that should be supported by us or the greens or any Australian at all.

[Badone]

The way it is the boats owners have got quota their going to catch that quota regardless of which size boat they use the real question is would you prefer a large boat fill the quota in a short period or would you prefer smaller boats fishing the whole year, this dispute is pretty pointless the fish are gonna get caught anyway the only thing that would stop that is to stop the licence not the boat,just my view looking at it without the blinders on and to settle anybodies nerves i do appose netting but without It I think we would probably suffer.
Finally someone who speaks some sense! Seafish Tasmania HAVE a quota to fish the Southern Ocean. They just chose to buy a bigger vessel to do it with. The fish that get caught will go o/s or remain in this country depending on what Seafish Tasmania want to do with them ie whatever is more profitable... what happens to the catch isn't determined by what boat catches them. They WILL catch their quota no matter what. It will just take them less time with a bigger ship. To my mind, one ship fishing for a month (employing 45 local Tasmanian lads) is a better option environmentally than 10 boats fishing for the entire year. Surely a fishing company has the right to buy whatever ship they want to catch their legal quota. The only argument worth having from a rec. fishing and environmental perspective is .. Are the quotas justified??
A similar thing happened years ago in Townsville when the Floating Hotel was placed at John Brewer Reef. The lagoon site had about 20 bommies that needed to be cropped by about 3m each so the Hotel could swing safely in the lagoon in the event of a cyclone. The company wanted you use explosives over a 2 week period to do the job but the greenies and rec fishing groups threw up their arms and said " No blasting on the reef". The government of the day caved and didn't allow blasting. The only way to level the bommies was to place an excavator on a pontoon to do the job for 3 hours a day when the tide was low enough over the space of about 8 months. The result was the visibility in the lagoon and surrounds was reduced to about 1m for that 8 month period and all the coral died. Anyone who snorkeled in the John Brewer lagoon while the hotel was there will tell you it was a desert. I worked diving channel markers in and out of that lagoon before and after the excavation and the reef was dead. Two weeks of blasting and the reef would have had 7 months to recover.. no dead coral other than that on the bommies... thanks to some uneducated ranting by green and rec fishing groups that reef was destroyed for a long time.
This super trawler situation sounds similar to me.

[Qlder1]

Finally someone who speaks some sense! Seafish Tasmania HAVE a quota to fish the Southern Ocean. They just chose to buy a bigger vessel to do it with. The fish that get caught will go o/s or remain in this country depending on what Seafish Tasmania want to do with them ie whatever is more profitable... what happens to the catch isn't determined by what boat catches them. They WILL catch their quota no matter what. It will just take them less time with a bigger ship. To my mind, one ship fishing for a month (employing 45 local Tasmanian lads) is a better option environmentally than 10 boats fishing for the entire year. Surely a fishing company has the right to buy whatever ship they want to catch their legal quota. The only argument worth having from a rec. fishing and environmental perspective is .. Are the quotas justified??
A similar thing happened years ago in Townsville when the Floating Hotel was placed at John Brewer Reef. The lagoon site had about 20 bommies that needed to be cropped by about 3m each so the Hotel could swing safely in the lagoon in the event of a cyclone. The company wanted you use explosives over a 2 week period to do the job but the greenies and rec fishing groups threw up their arms and said " No blasting on the reef". The government of the day caved and didn't allow blasting. The only way to level the bommies was to place an excavator on a pontoon to do the job for 3 hours a day when the tide was low enough over the space of about 8 months. The result was the visibility in the lagoon and surrounds was reduced to about 1m for that 8 month period and all the coral died. Anyone who snorkeled in the John Brewer lagoon while the hotel was there will tell you it was a desert. I worked diving channel markers in and out of that lagoon before and after the excavation and the reef was dead. Two weeks of blasting and the reef would have had 7 months to recover.. no dead coral other than that on the bommies... thanks to some uneducated ranting by green and rec fishing groups that reef was destroyed for a long time.
This super trawler situation sounds similar to me.

Fair enough there is some views from rec and greens on this issue that isn't supported by science..... of course if you read this
http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SPFRAG-13-meeting-record-_FINAL.pdf
you may be able to see why they managed to stop this trawler. There was concerns the evidence was not good enough to increase quota by 200% (re article real take increase of 6000% over recent catch :o)

As to your example above.... you blame the greens etc for the coral being killed, SO A F*#$N PUB CAN BE PUT THERE ???......>:(>:( WOW....

ps Samson, the previous quota has not been reached for several years now , whether its because of reduced effort(ie they can't sell it) or because the resource is depleted . Either way even the previous quota WILL NOT BE REACHED without a giant vacuum like the Margiris...

[TREVELLY]

If the quota can not be reached unless they bring in this super trawler then the quota is too large and to increase the quota by 2 times is treating the whole system and Australian community with contempt!

For a poly to say I regard this trawler as being just like a big tractor is "brain-dead"

[MudRiverDan]

We should oppose great fishing vessels from other country s scooping the guts out of our oceans regardless.

IMO it is not the damage the vessel will do it is the fact that it puts nothing back and provides a whole 25 jobs for Australians (what a joke).

Piss it off and put an Australian run/owned vessel out there and regulate the catch.

Simple.

Dan

[Badone]

[
As to your example above.... you blame the greens etc for the coral being killed, SO A F*#$N PUB CAN BE PUT THERE ???......>:(>:( WOW....

...
Qlder1,
I blame the greens for the coral being killed MORE than it should have been. Didn't think this distinction had to be explained but there you go?? As to the hotel being there in the first place, I protested it's approval for months prior to and after it's arrival but Joh won again.. as he tended to do in the '80s ...so please don't question my environmental concerns without any basis.

[MudRiverDan]

Qlder1,
I blame the greens for the coral being killed MORE than it should have been. Didn't think this distinction had to be explained but there you go?? As to the hotel being there in the first place, I protested it's approval for months prior to and after it's arrival but Joh won again.. as he tended to do in the '80s ...so please don't question my environmental concerns without any basis.

Though isn't blasting a far more destructive and indiscriminate method?
And has the reef recovered and how is it going at present?

Dan

[nigelr]

Well, what do you know, thanks Mr Wilkie.........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/fisheries-breached-act-on-super-trawler-quota/4263172

[SunnyCoastMark]

Finally someone who speaks some sense! Seafish Tasmania HAVE a quota to fish the Southern Ocean. They just chose to buy a bigger vessel to do it with. The fish that get caught will go o/s or remain in this country depending on what Seafish Tasmania want to do with them ie whatever is more profitable... what happens to the catch isn't determined by what boat catches them. They WILL catch their quota no matter what. It will just take them less time with a bigger ship. To my mind, one ship fishing for a month (employing 45 local Tasmanian lads) is a better option environmentally than 10 boats fishing for the entire year. Surely a fishing company has the right to buy whatever ship they want to catch their legal quota. The only argument worth having from a rec. fishing and environmental perspective is .. Are the quotas justified??
A similar thing happened years ago in Townsville when the Floating Hotel was placed at John Brewer Reef. The lagoon site had about 20 bommies that needed to be cropped by about 3m each so the Hotel could swing safely in the lagoon in the event of a cyclone. The company wanted you use explosives over a 2 week period to do the job but the greenies and rec fishing groups threw up their arms and said " No blasting on the reef". The government of the day caved and didn't allow blasting. The only way to level the bommies was to place an excavator on a pontoon to do the job for 3 hours a day when the tide was low enough over the space of about 8 months. The result was the visibility in the lagoon and surrounds was reduced to about 1m for that 8 month period and all the coral died. Anyone who snorkeled in the John Brewer lagoon while the hotel was there will tell you it was a desert. I worked diving channel markers in and out of that lagoon before and after the excavation and the reef was dead. Two weeks of blasting and the reef would have had 7 months to recover.. no dead coral other than that on the bommies... thanks to some uneducated ranting by green and rec fishing groups that reef was destroyed for a long time.
This super trawler situation sounds similar to me.

So, Seafish Tasmania which is a joint venture, primarliy owned by a couple of Dutch families - will just use this trawler for what? - a couple of months or so - to catch their 18,000 tonnes of fish and who knows how many other 1000's of tonnes as dead bycatch. Then the rest of their fleet and all their employees are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs for the rest of the year? (Anyone know how long it will take that beast to catch 18,000 tonnes?)
I know they only have a certain quota for Seafish "Australia" but it wouldn't surprise me if they have other companies registered to keep the rest of the fleet working.

That is just my opinion - but look at it from a business viewpoint - No business would mothball it's assets for most of the year.

The other thing is once they have their greedy little foot in the door with this super trawler - who knows where it will lead?

No - there is more to this than we know...... Just sayin.

Mark

[rabbi]

Australia is heading for a big fall and its not that far down the track.:P

[Qlder1]

Qlder1,
I blame the greens for the coral being killed MORE than it should have been. Didn't think this distinction had to be explained but there you go?? As to the hotel being there in the first place, I protested it's approval for months prior to and after it's arrival but Joh won again.. as he tended to do in the '80s ...so please don't question my environmental concerns without any basis.

Sorry Badone for questioning your greenie credentials, but go back and reread what you wrote; I don't know you and I base my opinions (for what they are worth) on what I read..your post came across to me as fairly anti conservationist..

[TheRealAndy]

You're kidding aren't you Andy??

Look at the size of the bloody thing. Regardless of the science, or the politics, or the facts and figures, or the greens or the rec fishos or the commercial fishos; whatever - this is a huge trawler from overseas, that is going to take 1000's of tonnes of fish from Australian waters.

I guarantee you that all the studies and impact assesments in the world will be meaningless. No one will really know what the impacts are until after the fact - by which time it will be too late.>:(

Should not happen! Cannot happen!

Why are they here? - IMO because they have raped and pillage fish stocks every where else to the extent the it is not economically viable to fish anywhere else.

As for politics - on one hand the government is buying back fishing licenses in an effort to reduce catches and preserve fish stocks and then on the other hand they entertain the idea of a super trawler??

It really is a no brainer -

Mark

Clearly you have misunderstood my post, or unable to comprehend what I am saying.

[Lovey80]

I have been beaten from all directions. I have seen great science dismissed by recreational fishermen due to pure ignorance.

This coming from a guy that defended the Snapper science purely because they used similar mathematical models to ones you use in the pokie industry, when the claimed largest stake holder (recreational fishermen), had next to zero data on their take. Please! And you called us ignorant.

On topic. One of my concerns with this trawler is, assuming that the quota and the science behind the quota was legit (which is now in serious question), is if you have a huge trawler taking out massive schools in one hit in a specific area what will that do to the food chain above it when the majority of the biomass of their food is gone instantly. What effects will it have on their predators if they have to travel an extra 100km or more to find food because the super trawler has taken their whole feed. It's a whole lot different to 10 smaller trawlers taking the same amount over a wider and potentially dispersed area.

[Lovey80]

Sorry Badone for questioning your greenie credentials, but go back and reread what you wrote; I don't know you and I base my opinions (for what they are worth) on what I read..your post came across to me as fairly anti conservationist..

His point was pretty clear mate. The Greenies blocked the use of explosives on targeted bommies based on fear and the thoughts of explosive blasting on a reef. Instead of wrecking just a small area with explosives, their efforts meant the whole reef was destroyed by the excavator.

[robo55]

it boils down to why we having so many marine parks to let fish come back to what we had and then on left hand go diminish our other stocks then we have none for our kids and us for that matter ,, then sen the big bastard back and seafish tasmania with it,, it is our country our fish they have raped the rest of world ,go see what they done to english channel and all around there and then let someone say wow it to late we let the bastards in here ,oh fill the boat with few pollies and put them in net to see how it works .i have few to mind here in tassie who need to go .as far as votes go hahaha we see

[robo55]

it boils down to why we having so many marine parks to let fish come back to what we had and then on left hand go diminish our other stocks then we have none for our kids and us for that matter ,, then send the big bastard back and seafish tasmania with it,, it is our country our fish they have raped the rest of world ,go see what they done to english channel and all around there and then let someone say wow it to late we let the bastards in here ,oh fill the boat with few pollies and put them in net to see how it works .i have few to mind here in tassie who need to go .as far as votes go hahaha we see

[TheRealAndy]

This coming from a guy that defended the Snapper science purely because they used similar mathematical models to ones you use in the pokie industry, when the claimed largest stake holder (recreational fishermen), had next to zero data on their take. Please! And you called us ignorant.



No, i tried to use something that people might understand to try and explain statistical modelling and how it is used in science. Just because there is little data, does not make the model wrong. Taking good data, and extrapolating it to use in other areas does not falsify the science. Its funny how the rec sector bagged me on that issue, yet the guys who have been out there for years and actually understand supported me.

Chris, you should know me well enough by now that I hate the greens, and I hate the narrow minded self interested opinion that comes from the left. I am a man of science, and I have a lot of confidence in the scientific process. Its pretty rigorous, and it has served us well over the years. When I research this stuff, I don't just look at the science, I also look at the authors and the reviewers and what their motivations are. I hate texas sharp shooters, so I am always looking out for them.

However, that has nothing to do with the subject. As I suggested in my first post, I am opposed to the trawler mainly because I hate the fact that an overseas vessel is capitalising on our fishery. If its sustainable, I dont care if its fished. But here you are, happy to destroy the snapper fisher when the science is there, yet complain about this trawler when know one really knows if its a problem. That is the hypocrisy I am talking about.

Please, show me that data that says what this super trawler is doing is going to decimate the fishery. If you don't have it, you are just guessing its bad. That is the the great green logical fallacy that we know as the precautionary principle.

[Lovey80]

Andy firstly, the data was not good in the snapper review science. It was utter rubbish.

Secondly, I was never prepared to destroy the snapper fishery. Even by their own admission that was not possible with the status quo.

Thirdly, my first objection to the trawler regardless of the science was the fact that dollars were going to go offshore to exploit our resource. So we sit in the same camp. I'm glad the trawler is gone just for that reason.

I would love to see the science from 2002 and see if my concern on the biomass issue has been covered. It's a concern, not a "block the trawler just in case" statement.

[Badone]

His point was pretty clear mate. The Greenies blocked the use of explosives on targeted bommies based on fear and the thoughts of explosive blasting on a reef. Instead of wrecking just a small area with explosives, their efforts meant the whole reef was destroyed by the excavator.
Thanks Lovey80, yeah I thought my point was pretty clear as well. I hate the thought of this ship wrecking the fishery as much as the next guy but uneducated rantings don't really forward the cause much. Let the science dictate how to best deal with this trawler and if the science hasn't been done then by all means ban it until it is done. The fishery might be better served if the quota is caught quickly... maybe not as well.... who knows. Going off on tangents about foreign vessels and jobs for Aussies just clouds the issue. Question the quota and the catch rates by all means. Just my opinion.. :-)

[SunnyCoastMark]

No, i tried to use something that people might understand to try and explain statistical modelling and how it is used in science. Just because there is little data, does not make the model wrong. Taking good data, and extrapolating it to use in other areas does not falsify the science. Its funny how the rec sector bagged me on that issue, yet the guys who have been out there for years and actually understand supported me.

Chris, you should know me well enough by now that I hate the greens, and I hate the narrow minded self interested opinion that comes from the left. I am a man of science, and I have a lot of confidence in the scientific process. Its pretty rigorous, and it has served us well over the years. When I research this stuff, I don't just look at the science, I also look at the authors and the reviewers and what their motivations are. I hate texas sharp shooters, so I am always looking out for them.

However, that has nothing to do with the subject. As I suggested in my first post, I am opposed to the trawler mainly because I hate the fact that an overseas vessel is capitalising on our fishery. If its sustainable, I dont care if its fished. But here you are, happy to destroy the snapper fisher when the science is there, yet complain about this trawler when know one really knows if its a problem. That is the hypocrisy I am talking about.

Please, show me that data that says what this super trawler is doing is going to decimate the fishery. If you don't have it, you are just guessing its bad. That is the the great green logical fallacy that we know as the precautionary principle.

Hey Andy,
I wouldn't class myself as a man of science - and I am pretty thankful for that - because like many things in this world - you can taint the science and the research, depending on whom you are being funded by.

I am a man of logic and common sense - and anyone with an ounce of either - can and will tell you that the supertrawler will be a bad thing for our local fishery. 18,000 tonnes from one ship. in a relatively short period.

let me break that down for you - say you have an average fish size of 5 kg - that equates to 3.6 million fish - gone. That is not including bycatch.

Obviously taking those fish in a shorter time period will result in less opportunity for them to reproduce than if 10 smaller trawlers caught the same qty. over a 12 month period.

- Often the science takes too long and unless you can get all the fish in the sea to fill out a census form - you will never know how many there are or were. - So the science would really just be a guess at best.

How can you accurately tell how many fish are in an area before an after a super trawler has been through?........... answer - definitively - you can't - it is impossible. - You can get something of an idea over a sustained period - like 5 or 10 years. By then it is too late.

Like I said - I don't need the science - just a bit of common sense and logic. Science just gets in the way of both.

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

Hey Andy,
I wouldn't class myself as a man of science - and I am pretty thankful for that - because like many things in this world - you can taint the science and the research, depending on whom you are being funded by.

I am a man of logic and common sense - and anyone with an ounce of either - can and will tell you that the supertrawler will be a bad thing for our local fishery. 18,000 tonnes from one ship. in a relatively short period.

let me break that down for you - say you have an average fish size of 5 kg - that equates to 3.6 million fish - gone. That is not including bycatch.

Obviously taking those fish in a shorter time period will result in less opportunity for them to reproduce than if 10 smaller trawlers caught the same qty. over a 12 month period.

- Often the science takes too long and unless you can get all the fish in the sea to fill out a census form - you will never know how many there are or were. - So the science would really just be a guess at best.

How can you accurately tell how many fish are in an area before an after a super trawler has been through?........... answer - definitively - you can't - it is impossible. - You can get something of an idea over a sustained period - like 5 or 10 years. By then it is too late.

Like I said - I don't need the science - just a bit of common sense and logic. Science just gets in the way of both.

Mark

So based on you theory, we should lock all the fisheries, from all forms of fishing, including recreational fishing because they may negatively impact the fisheries? I don't need science to tell me that your fishing is have an impact on the fishery. That is the logical conclusion based on what you are saying right? As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

There is science on the biomass of red bait and jack mackerel, this science is formed from observable evidence. The quota for the fishery is 7.5% of the estimated biomass. You are correct in saying that it cant be answered definitively, but it can be estimated and estimates always contain publicised margin off error.

Opponents to the super trawler fight back with hearsay and opinion, no fact, no science. Ad ignorantiam.

[Lovey80]

Andy, from your reading on the science on this, is the 7.5% figure what they believe the increase in recruitment survival rates will be to sustain the biomass?

[Qlder1]

I think most people would agree that the govt has done the correct thing to stop it until better or newer data is obtained relating to sustainability, localised depletion etc. It may be that this ship will be allowed to work here, actually more than likely it will. I just hope that unbiased science is used to allow these types of things rather than greed.

Humans are such a strange breed, frantically protesting to stop a trawler they know little about, for reasons such as saving cruelty to dolphins, turtles etc , all while eating chicken and pork that is treated in the worst ways imaginable...all because of greed :'(

whoaa I'm starting to sound like a greeny...:o

[TheRealAndy]

Andy, from your reading on the science on this, is the 7.5% figure what they believe the increase in recruitment survival rates will be to sustain the biomass?

Have a look, its all there: http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/small-pelagic-fishery-harvest-strategy/

Ongoing research is a requirement of the quota. The management techniques are sound. If an issue in recruitment survival rate is detected, it will be dealt with.


I think most people would agree that the govt has done the correct thing to stop it until better or newer data is obtained relating to sustainability, localised depletion etc. It may be that this ship will be allowed to work here, actually more than likely it will. I just hope that unbiased science is used to allow these types of things rather than greed.

Humans are such a strange breed, frantically protesting to stop a trawler they know little about, for reasons such as saving cruelty to dolphins, turtles etc , all while eating chicken and pork that is treated in the worst ways imaginable...all because of greed :'(

whoaa I'm starting to sound like a greeny...:o

No, the people who agree that it should be stopped have done so purely based on emotive reasoning, rather than science, and that is the problem that I have with it all.

[GARFISH]

Opponents to the super trawler fight back with hearsay and opinion, no fact, no science. Ad ignorantiam.

And this is to my point on a previous point.... Well said. The T&C with observers and in water cameras would of very quickly given us some evidence to either discontinue or continue it with, This is simply a decision based on ranting and raving,

[ranga7]

I can't believe that anyone who calls themselves an Aussie or a fisherman would agree with this trawler. Im not into these long winded posts with long words and science this and that. Simple the boat is from another country, its catch will be sent to another country, it'll will flog our grounds then piss off just like it did to the place previous. I don't need anymore facts. Cheers Ranga.

[TheRealAndy]

I can't believe that anyone who calls themselves an Aussie or a fisherman would agree with this trawler. Im not into these long winded posts with long words and science this and that. Simple the boat is from another country, its catch will be sent to another country, it'll will flog our grounds then piss off just like it did to the place previous. I don't need anymore facts. Cheers Ranga.

It is from overseas, and yes the fish will be sent overseas.

The truth is, it wont flog our grounds, it will utilise the fishery. It was bought here by australians, to fish australian quota, and australians will get paid for it.

I would prefer to see and Australian boat instead, but we don't have any suitable vessels. Still, this is not valid grounds to ban the boat.

[SunnyCoastMark]

It is from overseas, and yes the fish will be sent overseas.

The truth is, it wont flog our grounds, it will utilise the fishery. It was bought here by australians, to fish australian quota, and australians will get paid for it.

I would prefer to see and Australian boat instead, but we don't have any suitable vessels. Still, this is not valid grounds to ban the boat.

The Truth? - In this case we certainly can't handle the truth. You state above that this ship's quota is 7.5% of our bio mass - 1 ship taking 7.5% - This is what I have an issue with - the notion that that is acceptable. - Then they will want to up the quota - and they will find some scientists/ researches to say whatever they need to - to accomplish that. - It won't stop there.

This ship was not invited by "Australians" but by a couple or maybe even a few - that certainly do not represent the wishes of the majority of Australia's population.

"Australians" will get paid a small percentage which will go to a government that already wastes far to much money.

You state that "we don't have any suitable vessels" - Now, I don't get the thinking there? - What, is the government or who ever actively looking for ways to sell our fish stocks to other countries? - Then because we don't have a big enough boat to do it - lets get someone else in?

Valid grounds to ban the boat would be that we (Australians) don't want it here......... - That is all the validation necessary.

[Badone]

Im not into these long winded posts with long words and science this and that. Cheers Ranga.
Says it all really.... Just wondering where your outboard motor was made Ranga?? You know ... the one you use to go out and fish for your legal and Government approved catch.

[ranga7]

I read a great article on the abc website on this trawler. The fisheries and governments in west africa where this boat and others like it fish, are now being or are in the process of being banned from fishing as they have destroyed there fishery.
Realandy, the fish its going to catch here are being sent back to west africa, why, because theres bugga all left over there, why, thats not rocket 'SCIENCE'.
Why has this boat come up for lease by the mob in Tasmania. 1- Again there stopping these boats fishing out off west africa for obvious reasons. 2- The fish stocks over there are stuffed so its ended up here.

Lets not even go there, let one in and it could open up for you wouldn't know how many. NO NO NO.

[SunnyCoastMark]

Says it all really.... Just wondering where your outboard motor was made Ranga?? You know ... the one you use to go out and fish for your legal and Government approved catch.

???????????????????:-?

[TheRealAndy]

The Truth? - In this case we certainly can't handle the truth. You state above that this ship's quota is 7.5% of our bio mass - 1 ship taking 7.5% - This is what I have an issue with - the notion that that is acceptable. - Then they will want to up the quota - and they will find some scientists/ researches to say whatever they need to - to accomplish that. - It won't stop there.

So why do you have a problem with taking 7.5% of the biomass? Its a sustainable level. And yes, then can open up the quota, but only provided it is sustainable. Also, during the process of obtaining that quota, they will be doing research to ensure it is sustainable. There is legislation and practices to protect the fishery from becoming unsustainable.



This ship was not invited by "Australians" but by a couple or maybe even a few - that certainly do not represent the wishes of the majority of Australia's population.

"Australians" will get paid a small percentage which will go to a government that already wastes far to much money.



The quote was obtained by Seafood Tasmania (not Seafood Tasmania Pelagic for the record) Australians means more than one Australian. So yes, it was invited here by Australians. I never said "All Australians". Difference.




You state that "we don't have any suitable vessels" - Now, I don't get the thinking there? - What, is the government or who ever actively looking for ways to sell our fish stocks to other countries? - Then because we don't have a big enough boat to do it - lets get someone else in?



Seafish Tasmania obtained the quota, then partnered up with a dutch company to catch the quota. Seafish Tasmania manages a bunch of smaller trawlers designed to target the same species, but they are not large enough, and cannot process the quote obtained, hence the reason the Margiris was bought to Australia.




Valid grounds to ban the boat would be that we (Australians) don't want it here......... - That is all the validation necessary.

Yup, just the same valid grounds that were used by the greens to prevent recreational fishing in moreton bay, great barrier reef, coral sea, and the other no fish zones around Australia. I think you are missing the point of my post. No science, no valid reason, just becuase.


I read a great article on the abc website on this trawler. The fisheries and governments in west africa where this boat and others like it fish, are now being or are in the process of being banned from fishing as they have destroyed there fishery.
Realandy, the fish its going to catch here are being sent back to west africa, why, because theres bugga all left over there, why, thats not rocket 'SCIENCE'.
Why has this boat come up for lease by the mob in Tasmania. 1- Again there stopping these boats fishing out off west africa for obvious reasons. 2- The fish stocks over there are stuffed so its ended up here.

Lets not even go there, let one in and it could open up for you wouldn't know how many. NO NO NO.

The reason the West African fishery has been decimated is because it has been over fished for the last 20 years, no quota, no management. Big big difference to what is (or was) about to happen here in Australia.

[TREVELLY]

A better use for this ship would be to take the net off and throw it away then arm the ship and use it to patrol the southern coast for illegal fishing and whaling.

Scientists used to be regarded as worthy and wholesome - I think the Global Warming debate has degraded their standing immensely.

With industry science to my knowledge has never been used in an environmental impact study to stop the industry that employed it from allowing them to do what they want - to stop anything the common means is not the science but rather the industry endangering some weird and wonderful species that no one has ever seen before.

[Qlder1]

TheRealAndy science is a great thing....and can be interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence your on... Maybe you could read this

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fscientists-confirm-that-margiris-quota-is-unsound%2F

one persons "quota erring on the size of caution" is anothers "disaster if allowed"

[PROS]

So why do you have a problem with taking 7.5% of the biomass? Its a sustainable level.

Trawling is a destructive and indiscriminate fishing practice, thats why I am happy to see this ship going away.

Fish is part of our diet, should be a commercial activity.
The commercial world is moving towards sustainability also great, makes sense and will help to build up biomass.

Trawling is completely against sustainability.
I watched a documentary recently, the link was posted here.
What Canadian scientist said made great sense about trawling that since it alters the habitat of the fish and laminates the fishing ground - destroying the bottom structure - it can not be sustainable.
Had a great example of describing trawling as hunting a rabbit with bulldozers.
Since the bottom is modified, fish reproduction will be significantly reduced.

[TheRealAndy]

TheRealAndy science is a great thing....and can be interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence your on... Maybe you could read this

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fscientists-confirm-that-margiris-quota-is-unsound%2F

one persons "quota erring on the size of caution" is anothers "disaster if allowed"

Yeah, good find there. I missed that one. The stuff I read estimated the sustainable biomass to be about 15% take, so the quota allocated to seafish tasmania is half that. Even with the suggestions in that paper (mind you I only just briefed over it) the quota is still within the sustainable range. IIRC the AMFA reduces the quote each year until further studies are done to ensure sustainability.

However arguments against it from a scientific point of view hold much more relevance to me, than some idiot green politician yelling it down just because they don't like it.

[Si]

Trawling is a destructive and indiscriminate fishing practice, thats why I am happy to see this ship going away.

Fish is part of our diet, should be a commercial activity.
The commercial world is moving towards sustainability also great, makes sense and will help to build up biomass.

Trawling is completely against sustainability.
I watched a documentary recently, the link was posted here.
What Canadian scientist said made great sense about trawling that since it alters the habitat of the fish and laminates the fishing ground - destroying the bottom structure - it can not be sustainable.
Had a great example of describing trawling as hunting a rabbit with bulldozers.
Since the bottom is modified, fish reproduction will be significantly reduced.

agree but this boat and others use either purse seine or mid water trawl techniques where nets wont touch the bottom.